Does Aging Prove Genesis Is True?

[Colter]

Believing in God doesn't make you a devout Christian. Do you believe God's word? Jesus Christ? The Scriptures?

God is the Word, according to scripture. The scriptures were written by holy men who spoke in preacher speak, they didn't claim divine inspiration.

 

[MariaIsabella]

Believing in God doesn't make you a devout Christian. Do you believe God's word? Jesus Christ? The Scriptures?

I say I am a devout Christian because I believe Gods word, that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior and the Scriptures. But, I never said believing in God made me a devout Christian, I merely stated that I am a devout Christian. So, do you have a legitimate argument or are you just going to continue to question my faith?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

God is the Word, according to scripture. The scriptures were written by holy men who spoke in preacher speak, they didn't claim divine inspiration.

2 Peter 1:21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

John 10:35
...(and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Matthew 22:31
...have you not read what was spoken to you by God:

 

[Colter]

2 Peter 1:21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

John 10:35
...(and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Matthew 22:31
...have you not read what was spoken to you by God:

2 Timothy wasn't even scripture when the author expressed their personal opinion about the Old Testiment.

Peter was also an imperfect man with an opinion.

The Jews used the scripture against Jesus.

 

[Colter]

The fairy story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

By far the most important I suppose was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the what shall we say, the "sophisticated" theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they're deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.
Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion.

If I was an atheist this is exactly how I'd view this. Why would I put stock into the person Jesus if the origin of sin is just a fairy tale? How can there be sin when death was already in the world before man came from a rodent?
As I said in another thread there are answers to these questions. What is a theistic evolutionists authority? The Bible or the theory of evolution? As Dawkins pointed out, you can't be both, else your standing's are really based on a "God of the gaps" fallacy, which I also hate.

Jesus didn't ever claim that passing through the death experience was to atone for the sins of others, that's a human speculation for the time being. Jesus didn't teach original sin or inherited sin.

 

[Nym]

Hello everyone!

Allow me to explain my question... Biologically speaking, there is no real reason for us to age and die the way that we do. Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years?

Genesis 6:3 has God shortening our lifespans to 120 years... Isn't it interesting that nobody can live much longer than this? I read on Google that a woman supposedly lived for 122 years, but that's still right in the ballpark. Can this be explained without the God of Genesis? I don't mean explaining how it happens, but rather why it happens. Apparently the people who wrote Genesis believed that man's days were only 120 years... With that being said, why is it still this way when we have "evolved" so much in society and medicine? The most healthy man alive can't get past 120 years.

Evidence for Genesis being true? I believe so.

Side question... Why is aging even a thing? Why do cells just start to shut down? If the goal of life according to evolution is to survive the longest, then why can't our cells survive past 120 years? They just give up, but why? Something to think about.

A ballpark throws it. Of course cell degradation is why we age, it is why even a sun will die, but matter is never wasted, it just changes form, but even Jesus said about that, if the seed doesn't die and fall to the ground it abides alone.In the U.S. only twenty five percent of the population will live into their ninety's. In Chad, the average life expectancy is forty eight years. Over 250,000 people die world wide everyday.

I believe like Jesus said, God's words are spirit, and they reflect more of something happening in us.

Hello everyone!

Allow me to explain my question... Biologically speaking, there is no real reason for us to age and die the way that we do. Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years?

Genesis 6:3 has God shortening our lifespans to 120 years... Isn't it interesting that nobody can live much longer than this? I read on Google that a woman supposedly lived for 122 years, but that's still right in the ballpark. Can this be explained without the God of Genesis? I don't mean explaining how it happens, but rather why it happens. Apparently the people who wrote Genesis believed that man's days were only 120 years... With that being said, why is it still this way when we have "evolved" so much in society and medicine? The most healthy man alive can't get past 120 years.

Evidence for Genesis being true? I believe so.

Side question... Why is aging even a thing? Why do cells just start to shut down? If the goal of life according to evolution is to survive the longest, then why can't our cells survive past 120 years? They just give up, but why? Something to think about.

As in why would God do this?

 

[Meowzltov]

Hello everyone!

Allow me to explain my question... Biologically speaking, there is no real reason for us to age and die the way that we do. Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years?

Genesis 6:3 has God shortening our lifespans to 120 years... Isn't it interesting that nobody can live much longer than this? I read on Google that a woman supposedly lived for 122 years, but that's still right in the ballpark. Can this be explained without the God of Genesis? I don't mean explaining how it happens, but rather why it happens. Apparently the people who wrote Genesis believed that man's days were only 120 years... With that being said, why is it still this way when we have "evolved" so much in society and medicine? The most healthy man alive can't get past 120 years.

Evidence for Genesis being true? I believe so.

Side question... Why is aging even a thing? Why do cells just start to shut down? If the goal of life according to evolution is to survive the longest, then why can't our cells survive past 120 years? They just give up, but why? Something to think about.

Evolution does not have a goal.

We are born and die so that life constantly renews. Isn't that far greater than having one static life that is never born and never dies?

The average lifespan in the US is 79 years. The highest life expectancy is in Japan, 84 years. The lowest life expectancy is in Sierra Leone, 46 years.

 

[Meowzltov]

Do you believe Adam would have died had he not eat of the tree with the forbidden fruit ?

Yes. Let's assume that Adam was the first morally sentient hominid, that he "ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It would still have been true that his ancestors died, and had he not been morally sentient, he also would have died.

 

[4x4toy]

Yes. Let's assume that Adam was the first morally sentient hominid, that he "ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It would still have been true that his ancestors died, and had he not been morally sentient, he also would have died.

Do still borns have eternal souls ?

 

[Athanasius88]

I dont see how anyone can say that they accept Apostolic tradition and yet deny Scriptural authority...It is abundant in its clarity from the writings of the ECF that they considered Scripture to be "God breathed" just as Paul did, and as Peter did, as Christ did.
this entire debate about evolution and the interpretation of Genesis 1-4 boils down to one inalienable point. It is in these chapters that we find the very necessity of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. If man was not a special creation, made holy in the image of a Just and Holy God, that then rebelled and thru his own rebellion was cursed and sentenced to eternal death, then to what end were the events of the Gospels accomplished?
If there was no need of a Savior, why did God in the form of Jesus Christ come to earth, born of a virgin, live a sinless life, and die a sacrificial death for the sins of mankind, be resurrected and ascend to the right hand of the Father three days later?
every single Apostle, and every single ECF accepted each of these as fact, and Scripture itself as fact (their own writings declare as much and boldly so)
Today the lines are so blurred as to what makes one a Christian... i find that if u reject original sin then by definition u reject a necessary need of Jesus Christ. If you reject a necessary need of Jesus Christ then u reject the mercies of Our Father in Heaven and are not a Christian and as such are left to your own just condemnation.
So, brothers and sisters, I ask you now, Do you see your own wickedness? Do u see that you desperately need Jesus Christ? If so, then you by your own admission acknowledge the validity of the first four chapters of Genesis..and if u answered no to these questions, i will pray for u..because hell is just as literal as those first four chapters.....

 

[Meowzltov]

Do still borns have eternal souls ?

We have souls from the moment of conception.

 

[4x4toy]

We have souls from the moment of conception.

So tell me when evolution worked that in ..

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I dont see how anyone can say that they accept Apostolic tradition and yet deny Scriptural authority.....

I don't see how you can accept Scriptural Authority since you disregard the use of evidence to establish it. If you were willing to accept evidence you would accept evolution. But you disregard evidence in order to accept scriptural authority . . . . which means you don't accept it on the basis of evidence for it . . . . which means you have no reason for your faith.

An odd position to hang on to.

 

[Athanasius88]

I don't see how you can accept Scriptural Authority since you disregard the use of evidence to establish it. If you were willing to accept evidence you would accept evolution. But you disregard evidence in order to accept scriptural authority . . . . which means you don't accept it on the basis of evidence for it . . . . which means you have no reason for your faith.

An odd position to hang on to.

Can u produce a quote from me that declares i have no evidence for my faith? Can u even show reason why it would be safe to assume i have no reason for my faith? Can u offer anything besides a feeble attempt at calling me incapable of logical imperical discernment?
This thread topic is aging and its relationship to the book of Genesis, the debate in thread has progressed to be about whether Genesis 1-4 should be literally understood or figuratively so.The post i made was in relationship to said topic and had nothing to do with proof for or against the theory of evolution specifically, therefore i saw no need to include a treatise on the inherent virtue of a creation based view of world origin, or to cite any of the many controversial shortcomings of an evolutionary worldview.
I take it u do not approve of me sticking to the topic at hand, and would prefer that i should derail this thread far beyond the scope of its topic and current flow of discussion?
By all means, my friend, considering u have voiced an issue with my lack of provision of proofs of the legitimacy of my worldview and seem to regard me with a measure of contempt i feel it only prudent to insist that u post your compelling evidence that "were i willing to accept evidence, i would accept". If you refuse my challenge then your quality will have been effectively quantified and little doubt will be left of your academic prowess.

 

[Colter]

I dont see how anyone can say that they accept Apostolic tradition and yet deny Scriptural authority...It is abundant in its clarity from the writings of the ECF that they considered Scripture to be "God breathed" just as Paul did, and as Peter did, as Christ did.
this entire debate about evolution and the interpretation of Genesis 1-4 boils down to one inalienable point. It is in these chapters that we find the very necessity of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. If man was not a special creation, made holy in the image of a Just and Holy God, that then rebelled and thru his own rebellion was cursed and sentenced to eternal death, then to what end were the events of the Gospels accomplished?
If there was no need of a Savior, why did God in the form of Jesus Christ come to earth, born of a virgin, live a sinless life, and die a sacrificial death for the sins of mankind, be resurrected and ascend to the right hand of the Father three days later?
every single Apostle, and every single ECF accepted each of these as fact, and Scripture itself as fact (their own writings declare as much and boldly so)
Today the lines are so blurred as to what makes one a Christian... i find that if u reject original sin then by definition u reject a necessary need of Jesus Christ. If you reject a necessary need of Jesus Christ then u reject the mercies of Our Father in Heaven and are not a Christian and as such are left to your own just condemnation.
So, brothers and sisters, I ask you now, Do you see your own wickedness? Do u see that you desperately need Jesus Christ? If so, then you by your own admission acknowledge the validity of the first four chapters of Genesis..and if u answered no to these questions, i will pray for u..because hell is just as literal as those first four chapters.....

Good point, atonement is human speculation that is the foundation of the remixed gospel that developed after Jesus went back to heaven. The original gospel, taught 3+ years before the cross, wasn't "Christ and him crucified."

But those who left Judaism to follow Jesus forced him into their old, erroneous expectations of a Jewish Messiah. Sacrifice minded believers interpreted the cross as a sort of final sacrifice as Jesus left the death and resurrection open to interpretation as needed by would be believers.

Salvation is by faith, the Father has always been forgiving. Rejecting the prophets and even the original gospel of his own Son was not the will of God nor a requirement for forgiveness and salvation.

For me to believe in Christ is to believe in his original gospel about doing the will of the Father with a whole heart.

 

[dhh712]

Hello everyone!

Allow me to explain my question... Biologically speaking, there is no real reason for us to age and die the way that we do. Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years?

Genesis 6:3 has God shortening our lifespans to 120 years... Isn't it interesting that nobody can live much longer than this? I read on Google that a woman supposedly lived for 122 years, but that's still right in the ballpark. Can this be explained without the God of Genesis? I don't mean explaining how it happens, but rather why it happens. Apparently the people who wrote Genesis believed that man's days were only 120 years... With that being said, why is it still this way when we have "evolved" so much in society and medicine? The most healthy man alive can't get past 120 years.

Evidence for Genesis being true? I believe so.

Side question... Why is aging even a thing? Why do cells just start to shut down? If the goal of life according to evolution is to survive the longest, then why can't our cells survive past 120 years? They just give up, but why? Something to think about.

I don't see it as proof, and I actually do take a mostly literal view of Genesis.

If I'm not mistaken, I think there have been some people who lived past 120 years. Also, right after that passage about the 120 years in Genesis, I think it was common for people to still live for a couple hundred of years. That part isn't real clear in my memory so I'd have to look it up to be sure of it.

As for how cells start to shut down, we actually learned about this in a biology class I took in college. It has to do with telomeres. Of course, that just has to do with how it happens, not why. It seems some unbelievers think they've explained God away with discovering how things work. That's just a wonderful gift of God to let us look into the intricate natural laws that he's put in place. That doesn't explain why they're there in the first place. So why the aging/telomeres? That's because God set it up that way.

My own theory on aging is this: Adam and Eve were created perfectly, with perfect bodies of flesh. They were cast into this fallen world and corruption set in. Their genes therefore deteriorated over time, so at first people lived till they were nearly a thousand years old. Eventually, we have the current lifespan of a good 80 or so years. It seems to fit with what I know, but I'll be the first to admit it's just speculation. I'm certainly not a researcher of this or anything.

 

[Athanasius88]

Good point, atonement is human speculation that is the foundation of the remixed gospel that developed after Jesus went back to heaven. The original gospel, taught 3+ years before the cross, wasn't "Christ and him crucified."

But those who left Judaism to follow Jesus forced him into their old, erroneous expectations of a Jewish Messiah. Sacrifice minded believers interpreted the cross as a sort of final sacrifice as Jesus left the death and resurrection open to interpretation as needed by would be believers.

Salvation is by faith, the Father has always been forgiving. Rejecting the prophets and even the original gospel of his own Son was not the will of God nor a requirement for forgiveness and salvation.

For me to believe in Christ is to believe in his original gospel about doing the will of the Father with a whole heart.

With respect, Brother, your statements sound as if they are entirely of revisionist character. While i do understand and value the exchange of conflicting ideas and viewpoints, i feel that such a broad and all encompassing claim as yours (that all of Christianity has been deceived by revisionist Jews in the years after Christ's death) ought to be supported with adequate proofs and evidences.
I will in all honesty tell you that i regard your claims as a gross blasphemy, but in the interest of open discussion and Christian brotherhood i will gladly discourse with u, providing u make a reasonable effort to substantiate your claims.

 

[Colter]

With respect, Brother, your statements sound as if they are entirely of revisionist character. While i do understand and value the exchange of conflicting ideas and viewpoints, i feel that such a broad and all encompassing claim as yours (that all of Christianity has been deceived by revisionist Jews in the years after Christ's death) ought to be supported with adequate proofs and evidences.
I will in all honesty tell you that i regard your claims as a gross blasphemy, but in the interest of open discussion and Christian brotherhood i will gladly discourse with u, providing u make a reasonable effort to substantiate your claims.

Thanks, its very simple, today, if the Jews would have accepted Jesus' gospel, they would be teaching the original gospel from Jerusalem, the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus taught for 3 years before they apprehended him and put him to death. The Jews rejected the original gospel.

After the spectacular death and resurrection, the cross became the new, central focus. The Pagan theory of human sacrifice replaced the gospel that Jesus had preached to the Jews.

Its not complicated.

 

[Athanasius88]

Thanks, its very simple, today, if the Jews would have accepted Jesus' gospel, they would be teaching the original gospel from Jerusalem, the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus taught for 3 years before they apprehended him and put him to death. The Jews rejected the original gospel.

After the spectacular death and resurrection, the cross became the new, central focus. The Pagan theory of human sacrifice replaced the gospel that Jesus had preached to the Jews.

Its not complicated.

That what u have said here is by no means proof or even the attempt at such is blatantly obvious my friend. What u have done is to merely further explain your belief that Christ was somehow either not Mashiach Nagid, despite his own claim of such in John 4:25-26 or that somehow He was not sent to shed his blood in atonement for the sins of the world despite his words in John 10:14-15 where He says "I lay down my life for the sheep" (not only does he say he lay down his life, but that he does so for the sheep) His claim to messiahship in John 4 however, by itself, allows me ample evidence from as far back in Scripture as Genesis 3 to support His sacrificial atonement, including the famous Isaiah chapter 53.
I hope this post may serve as an example to you of how evidences and proof texts should be presented in this sort of discourse, Brother. Please compile your evidences and reply with the same if u would care to defend your position... However i must be clear that twice i have endured this foul blasphemy without your having offered a single shred of credible supporting evidence..Should u choose to once again reiterate your position without the attempt at providing references of authenticity, i may be forced to regard you as a heretic.

 

[Colter]

That what u have said here is by no means proof or even the attempt at such is blatantly obvious my friend. What u have done is to merely further explain your belief that Christ was somehow either not Mashiach Nagid, despite his own claim of such in John 4:25-26 or that somehow He was not sent to shed his blood in atonement for the sins of the world despite his words in John 10:14-15 where He says "I lay down my life for the sheep" (not only does he say he lay down his life, but that he does so for the sheep) His claim to messiahship in John 4 however, by itself, allows me ample evidence from as far back in Scripture as Genesis 3 to support His sacrificial atonement, including the famous Isaiah chapter 53.
I hope this post may serve as an example to you of how evidences and proof texts should be presented in this sort of discourse, Brother. Please compile your evidences and reply with the same if u would care to defend your position... However i must be clear that twice i have endured this foul blasphemy without your having offered a single shred of credible supporting evidence..Should u choose to once again reiterate your position without the attempt at providing references of authenticity, i may be forced to regard you as a heretic.

Jesus preaches the original gospel of the kingdom:
(Luke 6:17-19)

23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Jesus wasn't preaching "Christ and him crucified" as the cross hasn't happened yet.

Jesus became human for us, lived for us in faith, he died for us in faith. We have a God that has been human who lived by Gods will in faith, he showed us how, and that it could, be done. That there is life after death. That's not the same as saying the lamb was a substitue sacrifice for sins, an idea already prevalent in Pagan Roman religious philosophy. Roman state religion would eventually merge with the post cross speculations of men.

We were born into a ready made but compromised religion.