Creationism/Evolution

Cis.jd said:

This would depend on the context or point of reference we are talking about, lets find out: Do you believe that moon reflects the sun's light or is it actually a ball of light/energy - the same way the sun and stars are?

Click to expand...

There's the "context" word again.
This thread is not about the moon and whether or not it gives it's own light.

Taodeching said:

Of course it does, really being literal is not really believing the Bible. It is the literalist that are not Bible believing Christians

Click to expand...

Well, we'll have to disagree here.

If you don't think that something is literal... then you don't take it as truth... then... you don't believe it.

Kenny'sID said:

Sometimes what we call understanding is no more than twisting the bible to draw the conclusuon we wish to draw.
That fact has been made beyond evident on this thread.

Some clearly speak for the master of confusion.

Click to expand...

Clearly. Maybe you'll see the light, though.

Derek1234 said:

Clearly. Maybe you'll see the light, though.

Click to expand...

Wow, that was so cool what you said there.

JacksBratt said:

There's the "context" word again.
This thread is not about the moon and whether or not it gives it's own light.

Click to expand...

But we are talking about whether or not Genesis should be taken literally. If you do not consider the moon to technically be a body of light, like the sun and stars are, then you yourself do not take Genesis.

Just because something isn't literal doesn't mean it isn't true. I assume you don't believe Jesus to be a literal vine or we are literal sheep or fish do you?

JacksBratt said:

Well, we'll have to disagree here.

If you don't think that something is literal... then you don't take it as truth... then... you don't believe it.

Click to expand...

You can still believe something and not see it as literal. The problem is that literalist can't see the different genres in the Bible nor understand the culture that things were written in they assume that things were all written to them in the 20/21st Century.

Still we can be friends and have a coffee someday

Taodeching said:

You can still believe something and not see it as literal. The problem is that literalist can't see the different genres in the Bible nor understand the culture that things were written in they assume that things were all written to them in the 20/21st Century.

Still we can be friends and have a coffee someday

Click to expand...

Jesus said he is the vine and we are the branches. Just based on the posts presented by some here, they have to believe this means God is literally a stem of a grape other wise they don't believe in the Bible either.

Thomas White said:

Where does it say directly?

Click to expand...

“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Genesis 2:7

There is not the slightest hint that man was anything other than man..... He didn’t form some microbe that became man.... but formed man directly from the dust of the ground.....

There is no hint of evolution. Which is why for every single solitary distinct creature on every single solitary evolutionary tree where one creature is attempted to be connected to another separate and distinct creature imaginary missing common ancestors must be invoked....

because each creature was formed separately. We are not talking a few thousand times or even a few hundred thousand times. Not even millions or billions of times. But every single solitary time on every single solitary evolutionary tree....

If you take away these imaginary missing common ancestors all one is left with is the cold hard fact of Kind after Kind....

Justatruthseeker said:

“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Genesis 2:7

There is not the slightest hint that man was anything other than man..... He didn’t form some microbe that became man.... but formed man directly from the dust of the ground.....

There is no hint of evolution. Which is why for every single solitary distinct creature on every single solitary evolutionary tree where one creature is attempted to be connected to another separate and distinct creature imaginary missing common ancestors must be invoked....

because each creature was formed separately. We are not talking a few thousand times or even a few hundred thousand times. Not even millions or billions of times. But every single solitary time on every single solitary evolutionary tree....

If you take away these imaginary missing common ancestors all one is left with is the cold hard fact of Kind after Kind....

Click to expand...

Again, where did it say directly? How do you know what the Creation looked like? What did the dust look like as it formed man?

Cis.jd said:

This would depend on the context or point of reference we are talking about, lets find out: Do you believe that moon reflects the sun's light or is it actually a ball of light/energy - the same way the sun and stars are?

Click to expand...

What makes you believe the moon is being discussed?

Ancient mythology places Saturn in our sky ruling over a time of plenty...

But that would require getting into a long discussion of Astronomy and why Saturn in the past when close to the sun emitted its own light....

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeFB-ygaH63Seg6r6C_dtqB

Thomas White said:

Again, where did it say directly? How do you know what the Creation looked like? What did the dust look like as it formed man?

Click to expand...

If you aren’t going to accept what words mean then why bother discussing anything.

What did you find confusing about forming “man” from the dust of the ground? Besides it not fitting what you want to believe?

Justatruthseeker said:

If you aren’t going to accept what words mean then why bother discussing anything.

What did you find confusing about forming “man” from the dust of the ground? Besides it not fitting what you want to believe?

Click to expand...

What you are saying fits. You are just missing a few parts and adding a word to the Holy Scripture. Scripture does not say "directly" in regards to Creation. As you were not there, you cannot authoritatively add it. As I have asked, how do we know what Creation looked like?

Justatruthseeker said:

What makes you believe the moon is being discussed?

Click to expand...

The moon is not the point of my argument, it's all in regards to the topic of literal interpretation and also accepting the fact the Bible is not a source for scientific knowledge.

Ancient mythology places Saturn in our sky ruling over a time of plenty...

But that would require getting into a long discussion of Astronomy and why Saturn in the past when close to the sun emitted its own light....

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeFB-ygaH63Seg6r6C_dtqB

Click to expand...

And you know that is false, right? lets take away your Christian beliefs for the moment, you know that myth about saturn is completely false because of scientific evidence against it and no scientific evidence supporting it.

Cis.jd said:

But we are talking about whether or not Genesis should be taken literally. If you do not consider the moon to technically be a body of light, like the sun and stars are, then you yourself do not take Genesis.

Just because something isn't literal doesn't mean it isn't true. I assume you don't believe Jesus to be a literal vine or we are literal sheep or fish do you?

Click to expand...

I figured that someone would bring up that text... or that Jesus is a "door".

These arguments are empty. We all know that Jesus cannot be a literal vine.... or a door... or a lamb... It's obvious metaphor. But... He can be compared to a vine, door or lamb.. in context of the metaphor.

However, God did "literally" create the world with His voice in six days. It is not a metaphor for anything. It is a fact and from this actual seven day event, six of work and one of rest.. we get our standard week.

He is not a literal vine but it still tells us a fact.. that He is like a vine.

If the six days are not literal.. then they are false and untrue.

If you don't believe it.. you are not a "bible believing" Christian. IMO

Taodeching said:

You can still believe something and not see it as literal. The problem is that literalist can't see the different genres in the Bible nor understand the culture that things were written in they assume that things were all written to them in the 20/21st Century.

Still we can be friends and have a coffee someday

Click to expand...

Of course we can be friends and have coffee. Adults can agree to disagree.

Justatruthseeker said:

If you aren’t going to accept what words mean then why bother discussing anything.

What did you find confusing about forming “man” from the dust of the ground? Besides it not fitting what you want to believe?

Click to expand...

To paraphrase what he is saying or want
" Just take a puff. It won't kill you. You will be like most high"

Sorry for the above comment, it is inappropriate in a discussion amongst Christians and is in a bad spirit.

JacksBratt said:

I figured that someone would bring up that text... or that Jesus is a "door".

These arguments are empty. We all know that Jesus cannot be a literal vine.... or a door... or a lamb... It's obvious metaphor. But... He can be compared to a vine, door or lamb.. in context of the metaphor.

However, God did "literally" create the world with His voice in six days. It is not a metaphor for anything. It is a fact and from this actual seven day event, six of work and one of rest.. we get our standard week.

He is not a literal vine but it still tells us a fact.. that He is like a vine.

If the six days are not literal.. then they are false and untrue.

If you don't believe it.. you are not a "bible believing" Christian. IMO

Click to expand...

First of all, you acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is literal so by your own words in post191, you yourself are not a bible believing christian.

I know you don't believe that the moon is technically a body of light in the same sense as the sun and moon, nor do you think Gen 1:16 technically means that.

What about Gen 3:1 and 3:14: is satan literally and originally a reptile, do snakes literally eat dirt, will we be literally punching/kicking satan in the head? Should we literally believe this to be bible believing christians?

The reason why we know the world was not literally created in 6 days is because it is scientifically proven false. It's all metaphorical just like the examples given in this post.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Maybe Paul's belief is wrong.
Or maybe he was speaking metaphorically.

Click to expand...

according to reports in Bigelow News and ScienceDaily 8 April 2021, Science Alert 9 April 2021, and The ISME Journal, 6 April 2021; doi: 10.1038/s41396-021-00965-3.

Originally found deep in a South African mine, a bacterium named Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator was found to survive on a diet of chemicals produced from radioactivity deep in the earth. Since then the bacteria have also been found deep underground in California and Siberia where the chemical environments are each very different. Scientists thought they had “a unique opportunity to look for differences that have emerged between the populations over their millions of years of evolution”.However, when scientists from the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences studied 126 samples from the three different and widely separated sites, they found the separate genomes were almost identical.

According to Ramunas Stepanauskas, who led the study, “It was shocking. They had the same makeup, and so we started scratching our heads”.Stepanauskas went on to explain: “The best explanation we have at the moment is that these microbes did not change much since their physical locations separated during the breakup of supercontinent Pangaea, about 175 million years ago. They appear to be living fossils from those days”. The scientists suggest the microbes have remained unchanged because of accurate copying of their DNA which has maintained them in a state of “evolutionary stasis”.

These unusual microbes were originally discovered in 2005 and later studied by an international team of scientists, including scientists from NASA Astrobiology Institute. A NASA news article made the following comments about the microbes: “Genomic analyses have revealed that the organism’s genes code for everything needed to sustain an independent existence and reproduce, including the ability to fix its own nitrogen, move freely, sense its environment, protect itself from viruses, and even sporulate during nutrient-poor periods”. (NASA News 10 October 2008) Sporulate means to form spores.
Links: Bigelow, NASA, Science Alert, ScienceDaily

ED. COM. Unlike the research team above, we are neither shocked nor scratching our heads. This new study combined with the results of the 2008 study is evidence that since its first recorded appearance on planet earth this microbe has existed in a fully functional state which has provably not changed from then till now – exactly like all living fossils. Secondly, despite their evolutionist prejudice, even the NASA article admits the bacterium is well designed to live where it was found. Ipso Facto, this is exactly what you’d expect to result from Genesis 1-2 being true. They were created to work well and to reproduce copies of themselves without evolving. On that basis we predict that if their fossils are found in claimed older rocks they will still be the same unevolved and unevolving bugs.

P.S. 1 Note that the researchers who did this present study used the term “living fossil” but they did not find any fossilised bacteria.

P.S. 2 Don’t miss the fact that the term “evolutionary stasis” is evolutionist code for saying a living organism has not evolved.

myst33 said:

This English translation you used actually says nothing about the original sin. It just says that Adam was the first man who sinned and that we all sin.

Thats not the doctrine of the original sin. Our sinning is not dependent on Adam's sin. We sin on our own.

Click to expand...

But I think with Adams sin a fallen nature entered into the world and humans where we once were in a state of purity to God (had no knowledge of sin). I agree we are not automatically born as sinners but rather have a fallen state where we inevitable can sin and it is by sinning that we need salvation. Paul speaks about this sinful state when he mentions that we know we should do good but we still sin and need to be set free from being a prisoner to sin.

Matthew 7:21
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

This also makes sense for children not being regarded as born with sin as the Bible says that they will enter heaven if they die as children because they have not yet reached that state of knowing right from wrong and thus being capable of sinning.

This brings up an interesting point. This state of being which children don't have is what Jesus says we must obtain to be saved Mathew 18:3
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So perhaps it is this childlike state that we have lost when Adam sinned and brought a sinful state of being into the world. I think Adam represents the first person who was made in Gods image and had this childlike state and then when he sinned it was lost. Now through Christ we can get this back and redeem ourselves. So perhaps creation is more about this spiritual childlike state than the physical state, being created in humans.

Kenny'sID said:

Wow, that was so cool what you said there.

Click to expand...

well, you're just being a smart aleck (not really in fact) and accusing people who don't share the same opinions or interpretations as you. Who does that?