Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,836
3,548
N/A
✟145,189.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And i am here to report, there all lies, there are no real teams, just team members who are in this lie together.

Unless you do the test your self, and see the results your self, I would not follow these liars.

They do not believe in God, but you believe them????
Again, the study must be peer-reviewed by another scientist and after its published, all scientists around the world expect to get the same results when they will do the same experiment, in their work.

You imagine science to be some kind of talking, only.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is in fact the 'fallen' condition of mankind in operation. The irony is that this tendency is very effectively brought out in the Adam and Eve story. It comes naturally to us 'fallen' human beings, to deny responsibility, blame others for our disobedience and hide from the TRUTH as He walks in the garden of our lives.
.

How did mankind aquire this fallen state?
 
Upvote 0

Danielwright2311

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 28, 2018
2,219
1,358
50
Sacorro NM
✟110,365.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
How did mankind aquire this fallen state?

Natural consequence of deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil, and regarding our own 'knowledge' to be superior to God's wisdom. As soon as we were able to 'think' we were able to think 'wrong' things and do 'wrong' things, excusing ourselves or accusing others on the basis of our own understanding of 'right' and 'wrong' rather than God's definition of 'right' and 'wrong'. Those who know nothing of God's definition, are naturally without God in the world, Eph.2:12, following their own natural inclination, which is SIN. It is the Holy Spirit who puts us right on these matters, not our own ideas of right and wrong.

And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. John 16:8-11
.
 
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, none I ever seen reported.

By the way, "there" is the same as They're,

their is the correct word, thanks

You must be excused I suppose since you, as an American are writing English, a foreign language to you. 'There' is by no means the same as they're. There is a word that designates place, whereas they're is a contraction of they are, the apostrophe designating the omission of a letter, a sign of the modern English genitive or possessive case. Though, as in the subject under discussion, I guess you don't want to know that, so will probably reject the truth of it.
.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: trophy33
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That makes Eve NOT really created from Adam's bone...how?
the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun. The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise.

The task of Moses (through divine authority) was to unite Isreal and de-paganize them because clearly, they were theologically messed up. using an existing account that perhaps already had wide acceptance and redeeming it to show God as the only source behind all things is not so far fetched and is going to be a more productive way to unite people. it's call contextualization.

What is important in the text is what the point it's trying to make not what necessarily the words say and this is consistent in hebraic block logic. This type of logic is when ideas are grouped in separate blocks of information which do not have to agree with each other (for example light created before the sun) but have a point to make and it is the point that is most important but the information that is used to build the point can be somewhat fluid and does not have to be measured by science or by anything measurable.

The point of the creation account is not a 6-day creation it's that God is the source of all life and this is revealed through 7 days. To focus on the surface details as literal is not the point. how they are revealed and the language it uses is important but if its literal or not is not important, only that God did it all.

This an example of the space of those who disagree with a literal interpretation. It's not about voiding God's word it's about discovering it's original context to an ancient audience and what meaning the information the account is made up with has and also what the main message of the account is.

Under this scope, is Woman created by the bone of Adam? What is the underlying message of this information? Is it the literal information that is being valued or what that information points to? What does it point to? It could be to establish the leadership of man over women and providing a divine account like this ordains it.

This is eastern philosophy and still how the east functions in many ways. everything in the west is literal and it has foundational values build on being literal like "I did not tell a lie, I cut down the cherry tree" these are innate values of western logic but eastern logic would have a different way of telling that story. What is more important is how is shows honour not what actually happen, Washington cutting down a tree is not an act of honour to him or to his family, so the account could be changed to tell the same story but in a way to establish glory or honour to his family and it may be embellished to accomplish this goal such as inserting a supernatural occurrence as to why the tree was cut down. But it's lying right? not really, remember the story of Washington cutting down a tree is fabricated and never happened so there is no truth in it no matter how it's told but how it's told shows the values of the culture.

Eve being created out of the bone of Adam shows something, everything created in 6 days and God resting on the 7 shows something, but I think we missed the point when all we can see is the literal surface meaning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Natural consequence of deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil, and regarding our own 'knowledge' to be superior to God's wisdom. As soon as we were able to 'think' we were able to think 'wrong' things and do 'wrong' things, excusing ourselves or accusing others on the basis of our own understanding of 'right' and 'wrong' rather than God's definition of 'right' and 'wrong'. Those who know nothing of God's definition, are naturally without God in the world, Eph.2:12, following their own natural inclination, which is SIN. It is the Holy Spirit who puts us right on these matters, not our own ideas of right and wrong.

And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. John 16:8-11
.
You quoted Eph 2. "following their own natural inclination, which is SIN."

Where did those natural inclinations come from? I understand they are there and is what christianity teaches.
You present Gen 1-5 as a parable in this post. The bible doesn't present Gen 1-5 as a parable.

But the real question still is, why do humans have a sin nature? I find it difficult for the Theo-Evo sect to present an answer to that question. I suppose it's because they really don't have an answer considering they now have to force fit evolutionism as God means of creating humanity into the bible.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun. The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise.

When one studies scripture some of the so called inconsistencies go away. Here you have a problem with the light before the sun. Can it be answered? Yes. What was that light, the "let there be light" light? Was it sunlight? Obviously not.
Rev 21:23 may hold that answer when it says "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb."
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When one studies scripture some of the so called inconsistencies go away. Here you have a problem with the light before the sun. Can it be answered? Yes. What was that light, the "let there be light" light? Was it sunlight? Obviously not.
Rev 21:23 may hold that answer when it says "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb."
and you have a problem with reconciling a creation account inconsistency into a metaphor from inside a literalist vacuum.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They have to make Genesis a parable. They also need to do away with the fall.
Who's they?

The most ancient understanding of Genesis is that it is literally true history. Jesus said both Genesis chapters 1 & 2 were literally both true. The most ancient views on Genesis completely rule out parables and allegories. Everything in Genesis is believed to be literally true. It was only during the evolutionary synthesis that we arrive to the lie that Genesis is to be understood as a parable or allegory. But these theories come from atheists who are refuted by the most ancient sources out there.

Christians never listen to modern lies. We all know there are atheists who want to make our faith disappear. We know they lie which is why we hold atheists down to the oldest understanding of Genesis, especially Jesus Who said both Genesis 1 & 2 are absolutely true.
 
Upvote 0

PaulCyp1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 4, 2018
1,075
849
78
Massachusetts
✟239,255.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You will run into such questions as long as you insist on taking every verse of the bible literally. The truth Genesis is intended to convey is that God brought into existence all that exists. No, it wasn't in 7 literal days. No, it wasn't from Adam's rib. If you dwell on the specifics of this allegorical story, instead of asking what truths this story was meant to convey, you miss the whole point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun.
Nothing inconsistent about earth not needing the sun in the past or future. All that may be inconsistent inside your head is how God could arrange light here before the sun was made. Piece o cake.

The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise.
I suppose you could say Jesus was similar also, unless you looked closer and knew what you were talking about.


The task of Moses (through divine authority) was to unite Isreal and de-paganize them because clearly, they were theologically messed up.
Actually his task was to set them free from bondage for the most part.
using an existing account that perhaps already had wide acceptance and redeeming it to show God as the only source behind all things is not so far fetched and is going to be a more productive way to unite people. it's call contextualization.
Other words are unbelief and rejection of Scripture.
What is important in the text is what the point it's trying to make not what necessarily the words say and this is consistent in hebraic block logic. This type of logic is when ideas are grouped in separate blocks of information which do not have to agree with each other (for example light created before the sun) but have a point to make and it is the point that is most important but the information that is used to build the point can be somewhat fluid and does not have to be measured by science or by anything measurable.
God doesn't use that so called logic. He calls it foolishness.
The point of the creation account is not a 6-day creation it's that God is the source of all life and this is revealed through 7 days.
Says you, who has not the smallest clue.

To focus on the surface details as literal is not the point.
The Almighty wasted words describing how He did it? Good luck with that.

how they are revealed and the language it uses is important but if its literal or not is not important, only that God did it all.
If God says He did it one way and you interpret things to mean another way altogether, that is important.
This an example of the space of those who disagree with a literal interpretation. It's not about voiding God's word it's about discovering it's original context to an ancient audience and what meaning the information the account is made up with has and also what the main message of the account is.
God never wrote it for us? Jesus seems to disagree.
Under this scope, is Woman created by the bone of Adam?
If your scope does not have agreement with God, better lose your scope.

What is the underlying message of this information? Is it the literal information that is being valued or what that information points to? What does it point to? It could be to establish the leadership of man over women and providing a divine account like this ordains it.
Says who??? Maybe He just wanted us to rest assured He can do anything and loves us and is the real creator etc?

This is eastern philosophy and still how the east functions in many ways. everything in the west is literal and it has foundational values build on being literal like "I did not tell a lie, I cut down the cherry tree" these are innate values of western logic but eastern logic would have a different way of telling that story.
Don't blame folks for having some connection to truth, or concern about it.
What is more important is how is shows honour not what actually happen, Washington cutting down a tree is not an act of honour to him or to his family, so the account could be changed to tell the same story but in a way to establish glory or honour to his family and it may be embellished to accomplish this goal such as inserting a supernatural occurrence as to why the tree was cut down. But it's lying right? not really, remember the story of Washington cutting down a tree is fabricated and never happened so there is no truth in it no matter how it's told but how it's told shows the values of the culture.
God's word can't be changed like your history.


Eve being created out of the bone of Adam shows something,
Like how God got women on the planet!

everything created in 6 days and God resting on the 7 shows something, but I think we missed the point when all we can see is the literal surface meaning.
You miss the point when you spiritualize it all away, and reject the plain reality of what the bible says, and try to turn it into fables, like science!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ExTiff
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why would the word of the Almighty need some bridge? All that remains is to check how well 'science' did in it's origin explanations. We can grade them.
You shouldn't use or rely on the Bible with determining, answering, or connecting with science. The word of the Almighty should not be used as a bridge or a scope to whatever science says. When you actually try to do that, you end up making/showing contradiction between science and God which makes the "word of the Almighty" looked fake because of scientific proof and reason.

Great. So the beginning is known.
The beginning is unknown. We are just simply told the main point, which is God designed everything.. whether it was through the big bang, or evolution, or whatever is the job of science.

The details we are given should not be despised and rejected.
No, there are no details given. The writers of the Bible had no concept of things such as electricity, planets, continents or anything that we have known to be fact today. They where inspired by the Holy Spirit but they where not given such supreme academic knowledge of everything.

Right, Eve was not spawned by some proto monkey or whatever, but deliberately and wonderfully made from a part of the already created man.
We don't know. There is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution and what we were prior to what we evolved to now. Genesis doesn't state anything in support or in opposition to evolution or the "proto-monkey" if you will because the Bible is not a science book.

It is truth, which SCIENCE IS NOT!!!!
Science is truth as well, but i know you being the typical devout christian will object to that. Science just takes time, study, experimentation to confirm what is true. Does this lessen the credibility of the Bible, no; It should not. However when you do try to use the Bible for scientific clarification and confirmation, this is when you are lessening the credibility of the Bible.

People made the word of God look like fiction just based on they applied the Bible for confirming scientific related things (the age of the earth, the shape of the earth, etc) and these where all proven wrong. The reality is, the Bible does state anything about the actual shape of the earth, the age of the earth, or how anything is designed in the Universe because it was not meant to be about all that. Stop making the same mistake that christians through the dark ages have been doing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Who's they?

The most ancient understanding of Genesis is that it is literally true history. Jesus said both Genesis chapters 1 & 2 were literally both true. The most ancient views on Genesis completely rule out parables and allegories. Everything in Genesis is believed to be literally true. It was only during the evolutionary synthesis that we arrive to the lie that Genesis is to be understood as a parable or allegory. But these theories come from atheists who are refuted by the most ancient sources out there.

Christians never listen to modern lies. We all know there are atheists who want to make our faith disappear. We know they lie which is why we hold atheists down to the oldest understanding of Genesis, especially Jesus Who said both Genesis 1 & 2 are absolutely true.
I agree.

Theo-Evos need to make Genesis a parable, allegorical or a myth to force it to conform to evolutionism.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FEZZILLA
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You will run into such questions as long as you insist on taking every verse of the bible literally. The truth Genesis is intended to convey is that God brought into existence all that exists. No, it wasn't in 7 literal days. No, it wasn't from Adam's rib. If you dwell on the specifics of this allegorical story, instead of asking what truths this story was meant to convey, you miss the whole point.
Was the Sabbath day command a literal day? Same Hebrew word. All these modern ideas are rejected by ancient tradition. Ancient tradition also says the Gospel of Matthew was written before Mark and yet somehow this lie that Mark was the first written Gospel is believed by so many Christians and its not true.
Jesus said Genesis chapters 1 & 2 are literally true and He quoted from Chapters 1, 2, 6-9 (Flood) and said its literally true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I agree.

Theo-Evos need to make Genesis a parable, allegorical or a myth to force it to conform to evolutionism.
Total waste of time. Anyone with a clear thinking mind can read Scripture and know for certain that Genesis was meant to be taken literally. Jesus said it was literal, too. But some people got an ego to invest in and lies to entertain. But nobody serious believes them.
 
Upvote 0