Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

[trophy33]

So, if I choose to believe the bible and not believe evolutionism I'm an ignoramus?

If you just say its your belief, no.

But when you will start to "scientifically" explain Genesis like you do ("God removed the light source..."), ignoring various discoveries of science, then you are being ignorant, scientifically.

You will also be ignorant theologically, not understanding the cultural and historical context of the text you read.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, if I choose to believe the bible and not believe evolutionism I'm an ignoramus?

Yes. I can understand if you reject it due to requiring visual evidence that you need to see it 1st hand, but if it's because of religious stubbornness/biases then yes you are an ignoramus.

St Agustine talked about the concept way before Darwin did by the way, so this was never foreign to Christianity. Christian thinkers have always theorized that God created things in a pending state. Everything evolves.

Evolution itself is a theory that actually poses as evidence for creator IMO, because I just don't see how it is possible that life can just change to be able to adapt and survive to natural changes with out being engineered. Atheists twist science to make it look as if it debunks God, however things such as the Big Bang, Evolution actually prove him more than what random snowflake says.

 

[-57]

We know that Adam and Eve were never immortal because they were kicked out of the garden BEFORE they ever ate of the tree of 'life'.

That would depend on what is meant by immortal and what was the purpose of the tree of life.
The tree of life seems to have some sort of role in maintaining Adam and Eve's life.

The judgement of death was placed on Adam and Eve as seen in Gen 3:19

19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

Some suggest Adam and Eve had hopes of eating from the tree of life and re-obtain eternal life. But as we know Adam and Eve were banned from the garden which was pretty much as an act of mercy as they were prevented from eating from the tree and living eternally in the fallen state.

Eternal life is now obtained through Jesus Christ.

 

[-57]

If you just say its your belief, no.

But when you will start to "scientifically" explain Genesis like you do ("God removed the light source..."), ignoring various discoveries of science, then you are being ignorant, scientifically.

You will also be ignorant theologically, not understanding the cultural and historical context of the text you read.

There are several scientific models that scientifically explain the six day creation.
Here's one of them.
So for you to suggest YEC's are being ignorant scientifically....is simply wrong. I trust you stand corrected.

When it comes to cultural and historical context the NT fills in a lot of holes. Jesus presents Genesis as literal when He said these words in Mark 10 "5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because your hearts were hard. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

In the book of Jude Adam as well as Enoch are presented as literal and historical : jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

The following is condensed from Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Can you point out where the genealogy goes from Fact to fiction?

 

[-57]

Yes. I can understand if you reject it due to requiring visual evidence that you need to see it 1st hand, but if it's because of religious stubbornness/biases then yes you are an ignoramus.

St Agustine talked about the concept way before Darwin did by the way, so this was never foreign to Christianity. Christian thinkers have always theorized that God created things in a pending state. Everything evolves.

Evolution itself is a theory that actually poses as evidence for creator IMO, because I just don't see how it is possible that life can just change to be able to adapt and survive to natural changes with out being engineered. Atheists twist science to make it look as if it debunks God, however things such as the Big Bang, Evolution actually prove him more than what random snowflake says.

Romans 5:12 stands in the way of evolutionism.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

So does 1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

So does Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

 

[DamianWarS]

The 2 creation acounts support each other. The second pretty much is a description of day 6.
I've already discussed the light before the sun with you. Your reply back was pretty much void of a response.

What was the light in Gen? The bible doesn't really say. Some suggest it could have been the creation of the angels who watched the creation. I also have no problem with it being the glory of God. Literally.

God simply removed the light source...as we had the sun now.

What fails is the need for Christ, God in the flesh, as you have no reason for the fall of mankind.

I am agnostic to the literal events of the creation account or the accounts pre-Abraham. They are very different than the rest of the historical accounts of the bible and are written hundreds to thousands of years after they happened. I see no reason why they need to be literal.

The second creation account is not the 6th day and you know it doesn't mirror it and you know there are inconsistencies with the two accounts. you are trying to be literal, aren't you? So why are you being so careless with the literal information? You take your own liberties to ensure the accounts reconcile but fail to see it corrupts a literal model.

Man doesn't need to have a fall event to be dependant upon a redeemer to save them from the wrath of God. This sort of dependence is inherited simply from not being God. A white piece of paper will burn just a quick in a furnace as a black one will, it's unspoiled state or beauty doesn't protect it from the fire any more or less than a spoiled black one does; we are not God so we burn up in his presence without a redeemer. The idea that man didn't need a redeemer before the fall would be tantamount to calling the pre-fall state not in need of God and becoming gods themselves, this the very deception of the serpent in the garden. We were never gods, we are God's creation and we worship him as the source and creator of all things.

physical light needs a physical source that is fixed in space and time. it grows stronger as it nears it's source until the source itself is revealed. if this source is the glory of God then this would demand God has a physical form fixed in space in time where the light is emitted from and this would be in direct conflict with the divine qualities of God.

In order to preserve God's divinity, the light can't be his direct glory as this would suggest that before the light God did not have glory which would corrupt his divinity. If this is physical light and this is the first of anything created the light would have to be God's manifested glory which would be emitted from a disembodied source (since nothing else but light was created) fixed in space and time. The best fit for the light being his direct glory (and I use that loosely) would be everything would be light and nothing darkness but we know this to be untrue as the light was separated from the darkness and darkness wasn't removed

When the celestial objects are created on the 4th day this light would be dissolved in favour of these new lights. This is just weird and only a literalist vacuum would demand this but nothing remotely suggests this in the entirety of scripture. These are some of the gaps a literalist position creates and you can't just pile stuff in the gaps and think it all works out. When this happens it twists the creation account into something it was never intended to be, yet I'm the one manipulating it. I think no word should be added and there are no gaps in the creation account. The creation account is perfectly presented as it is.

What else could the light be if it wasn't physical light? Well that's not the point I'm making I'm suggesting the creation account is not the literal details of how God created the universe which would be unfathomable, instead the account is there to show us the glory of God, to point to Christ and to his salvation and this is what the light is, the salvation of God from God that overpowers the void dark desolate place that was. the creation account is a powerful text that I take very seriously, but I see other values more important than the literal surface details.

 

[JacksBratt]

I am agnostic to the literal events of the creation account or the accounts pre-Abraham. They are very different than the rest of the historical accounts of the bible and are written hundreds to thousands of years after they happened. I see no reason why they need to be literal.

If the creation account is correct.. they could not have been written more than a thousand or so years later... Not hundreds of thousands..... That is pure hyperbole....

Not only that, but the age of the people in those days being in the 500 year plus... means that Adam knew Methuselah who knew Noah's sons.. who knew Abraham....

Kinda closes the gap to the whole... "that's a real old story and how can we believe it" nonsense.

 

[Cis.jd]

Romans 5:12 stands in the way of evolutionism.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

So does 1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

So does Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

In what way does Romans 5:12, Acts, or 1 Cor have anything in connection to evolution or anything related to biology?
" i see that he made man, so that means the topic of evolution is related to this verse"? Couldn't you apply some form of sense and maybe think that this is general creation. Like he created man first and then designed his creation to be able to auto-adapt to their environment and just grow physically/mentally to what they are now? I mean, by your silly reasoning based on these verses why not reject things like babies, fetus', children or anything that isn't a mature-skinned "man" yet?

 

[dad]

We all do, there are aspects of the creation account that are conflicting, for example there are 2 creation accounts that don't mirror each other and other inconsistencies like light created before the sun.

Chap 2 is AFTER it was all finished and looks at some things already done. It is not a mirror. Light before the sun is no inconsistency, just science that is higher than demon science.

Everyone says some answer to it but they can't be reconciled in a literalist vacuum. For example I have heard it said the light was the glory of God as it is spoken of in the new Jerusalem in Rev. This is clever, and I like it, but it needs to be thought out better for a literalist. Does this mean the glory of God was created and it didn't pre-exist with God?

God can shine wherever and whenever He likes.

Where did this light come from since light comes from a source this would conflict with the infallible nature and characteristics of God.

God is light and He will light New Jerusalem so we know He can light stuff. Nothing about God being able to shine light conflicts with anything..except demon science.

Clearly, scripture shows a separation of light and darkness so where was the point of origin of this light? The moment it is materialized and takes a static position it is beneath the glory of God.

That is not known. Thought you knew it all?? Jesus came to earth, that was not beneath the glory of God. He will return. He will be seen by all...etc. Just because you have some misbegotten notion of what the Almighty has to always appear as, does not mean anything.

This foreshadowing to the New Jerusalem is great but literalist can't seem to grasp that there is a lot of metaphor in this stance and for it to fit a literal interpretation it would have to be a disembodied physical manifestation of light of the glory of God that would later be abrogated by the light of the sun (since we no longer see this light).

Nothing about providing a great light for the world abrogates anything. For man it was never a case of 'no longer seeing' any light before the sun, since he was made after it!

You can't call it spiritual, metaphorical or reorganize the days to fit because these would all corrupt a literal interpretation.

Days can be and are marked by the cycles of the earth and sun etc. That does not mean there can be no day without them! How do you think God knew what a day was before He created the sun to mark a day??!

Genesis pre-abraham is a lot different than Genesis post-abraham

So what?? Abraham is after the flood and time of Babel, so the world was quite different.

and I would say the early parts are more involved with laying foundation for a very paganized post-exodus Israel showing that God is the source of all things.

Totally manufactured hollow banging of your own cymbal.

The surface literal details are not the focus of these accounts and they are going to fail when we try and turn them into that.

We can learn plenty about the life spans and different nature after the time of Babel (Abraham also, therefore). But to learn we need to believe it.

 

[dad]

You are still not making any unique or useful points. There is no depth to these responses and they are just full of labeling and posturing but a large void of relevant information or sourcing that will build your points. All you are saying is "I'm right and you're wrong" with nothing to show why. Can you show me some respect and engage the conversation at the level it demands?

Your inability to comprehend the depth of what is being said is your problem.

 

[Cis.jd]

Nothing about providing a great light for the world abrogates anything. For man it was never a case of 'no longer seeing' any light before the sun, since he was made after it! Days can be and are marked by the cycles of the earth and sun etc. That does not mean there can be no day without them! How do you think God knew what a day was before He created the sun to mark a day??!

When God created day/night. Which country had the day first, since... you know..the earth being a sphere, which means if it is day on one side then it is night time on the other?

Your inability to comprehend the depth of what is being said is your problem.

But at the same time, you have been rejecting academical facts with the "satan" labeling over things you just don't like to accept.

 

[dad]

How about you stop using devices devil science has given us?

No device exists that resulted from oi gin fables. Not one anywhere. Of the devices science brings us, many are a threat to life, so yes, please stop using nuclear weapons and polluting the earth etc. Since the bible tells us to use the world, it is fine to use what we need despite the evil here. What people need to do is realize that much of modern science is demon inspired, especially the origin stories. But what do some religions that profess christianity do instead? They butcher and reject and reinvent the bible to fit the doctrines of demons. That turns the stomach.

Maybe use prayers to get your posts here instead of being hypocrite and using computers while praising ignorance and evils of technology.

Don't think that all knowledge is evil, there is good and evil. Reject the bad and cling to the good.

 

[dad]

Lies are also known to be lies if there is no evidence of it. Your arguments are completely looney. Everything you just don't want to accept you auto shelf it the "demon/satan" bin and this is a massive problem with christianity and why it has been retaining an unintellectual reputation.

My argument is that science teaches Eve came from the birth canal! It is looney to try and pretend God agrees. You have no evidence for the anti bible alternate creation stories you thought were science. None at all. That is why your posts will never contain any.

It's not "demon science". You need to stop making unintelligent classifications such as "demon science".

Fallen angels seek glory rather than giving God glory, and they seek dominion over man. The bible opposing stories so called science offers mankind are hard evidence there is direct demon involvement.
The problem lies in some folks having thought demon talk was God speaking.

This has nothing to do with my argument about the Bible not being a science book.

Science is not a science book! It is demon doctrines disguised as science.

You call it fossils.

Apparently your glib little phrase here looms large in your mind with meaning. Maybe flesh it out so we all can have a look and a laugh.


You really have no care to argue intelligently do you?[/QUOTE]

 

[dad]

When God created day/night. Which country had the day first, since... you know..the earth being a sphere, which means if it is day on one side then it is night time on the other?

Since probably the world was joined, and this was before continents or countries existed, your question is moot. (actually the waters and land were not even formed as we know them early on till after they were separated) Now answer this, if God hovered over the world (at the time waters) was there also light on the far side of the planet!? Ha.

But at the same time, you have been rejecting academical facts with the "satan" labeling over things you just don't like to accept.

Let's call a spade a spade.

 

[Cis.jd]

My argument is that science teaches Eve came from the birth canal! It is looney to try and pretend God agrees. You have no evidence for the anti bible alternate creation stories you thought were science. None at all. That is why your posts will never contain any.

But i just gave you an example of evidence, fossils. Have you not read a history book and seen how different the frames of humans and animals where from the BC to the present times?

You on the other hand are refusing actual facts and instead enforcing the negative stereotype of Christianity when it comes to reason. You can't even demonstrate nor show an example of evidence for your case other than then "this is what this book says, i think it's literal therefore I'm right and the rest is from satan". Yet here you are pointing fingers on no evidence?

Fallen angels seek glory rather than giving God glory, and they seek dominion over man. The bible opposing stories so called science offers mankind are hard evidence there is direct demon involvement.The problem lies in some folks having thought demon talk was God speaking.

None of this involves fallen angels, demons, or satan. Stop repeating such nonsense just for the sake of rejecting what you don't want to accept.

 

[Cis.jd]

Since probably the world was joined, and this was before continents or countries existed, your question is moot. (actually the waters and land were not even formed as we know them early on till after they were separated) Now answer this, if God hovered over the world (at the time waters) was there also light on the far side of the planet!? Ha.

Let's call a spade a spade.

But you still see land/earth existing in genesis so continents did exists.. and even if all contents where joined (as science says) it still wouldn't be day on all areas since the world is still a globe. so yes, which part of the land was day and which part was night?

 

[-57]

I am agnostic to the literal events of the creation account or the accounts pre-Abraham. They are very different than the rest of the historical accounts of the bible and are written hundreds to thousands of years after they happened. I see no reason why they need to be literal.

I've already answered that question in several post. Other portions of the bible present them as literal.
One example I gave was in Pauls letter to Timothy where he instructs women to act in a certain way...basing it upon Eve's role in the fall and her position of creation. 1 Tim 2:13-14.

It makes no sense Paul would instruct the women based upon a parable, myth or allegorical acount. Paul clearly based it upon a literal historic event.

Post 144 and 145 present several other reasons why Genesis is historical and literal.

The second creation account is not the 6th day and you know it doesn't mirror it and you know there are inconsistencies with the two accounts. you are trying to be literal, aren't you? So why are you being so careless with the literal information? You take your own liberties to ensure the accounts reconcile but fail to see it corrupts a literal model.

You kinda remind me of a guy who once argued that Adam was created on day 3 rather than day 6 based upon a faulty reading of the plants being created on day 3 and the plants that were made to grow in the garden.
Genesis tells us God made man on day 6. The second account also has God making man so that too must be day 6. As I said, a re-cap.

Man doesn't need to have a fall event to be dependant upon a redeemer to save them from the wrath of God. This sort of dependence is inherited simply from not being God. A white piece of paper will burn just a quick in a furnace as a black one will, it's unspoiled state or beauty doesn't protect it from the fire any more or less than a spoiled black one does; we are not God so we burn up in his presence without a redeemer. The idea that man didn't need a redeemer before the fall would be tantamount to calling the pre-fall state not in need of God and becoming gods themselves, this the very deception of the serpent in the garden. We were never gods, we are God's creation and we worship him as the source and creator of all things.

It is because of Adams fall that mankind suffers the wrath of God. Romans 5 paints a pretty clear picture that Adams fall is why the Word became flesh and died.

Prior to the fall there was no need of a redeemer.

physical light needs a physical source that is fixed in space and time. it grows stronger as it nears it's source until the source itself is revealed. if this source is the glory of God then this would demand God has a physical form fixed in space in time where the light is emitted from and this would be in direct conflict with the divine qualities of God.

God had to hide Moses in the cleft of a rock as His glory passed.
If God was pure spirit when he walked by Moses then your argument fails. If God took on a physical form when walking by Moses then your argument also fails.

In order to preserve God's divinity, the light can't be his direct glory as this would suggest that before the light God did not have glory which would corrupt his divinity. If this is physical light and this is the first of anything created the light would have to be God's manifested glory which would be emitted from a disembodied source (since nothing else but light was created) fixed in space and time. The best fit for the light being his direct glory (and I use that loosely) would be everything would be light and nothing darkness but we know this to be untrue as the light was separated from the darkness and darkness wasn't removed

Considering God is a Trinity many options open.
Considering Jesus could turn on or off his glory such as when He was on the Mt. of Transfiguration opens up other options.

Step one, create the earth formless and void.
Step two, Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Step Three, Let there be light. Some explanations have been provided as to what that light may have been.
Step Four, God separated the light from the darkness. This could be when the earth began to rotate.

When the celestial objects are created on the 4th day this light would be dissolved in favour of these new lights. This is just weird and only a literalist vacuum would demand this but nothing remotely suggests this in the entirety of scripture. These are some of the gaps a literalist position creates and you can't just pile stuff in the gaps and think it all works out. When this happens it twists the creation account into something it was never intended to be, yet I'm the one manipulating it. I think no word should be added and there are no gaps in the creation account. The creation account is perfectly presented as it is.

I see no weirdness in it at all. I already presented an account in revelations where the glory of Jesus illuminated the New Jerusalem.
Luke 2:3 also mentions another time when the Glory of the lord shone around the shepherds.

What else could the light be if it wasn't physical light? Well that's not the point I'm making I'm suggesting the creation account is not the literal details of how God created the universe which would be unfathomable, instead the account is there to show us the glory of God, to point to Christ and to his salvation and this is what the light is, the salvation of God from God that overpowers the void dark desolate place that was. the creation account is a powerful text that I take very seriously, but I see other values more important than the literal surface details.

The purpose of describing the creation in Genesis wasn't for God to provide each and every detail.
Yes, it was to show His glory as the heavens declare them. Yes Jesus is the light, but that reference isn't about photons.

Many say God created the lesser light, the sun, moon and stars on day 4 to show the people of the world that God is the creator andwe should not worship the sun, moon or stars.

 

[-57]

But i just gave you an example of evidence, fossils. Have you not read a history book and seen how different the frames of humans and animals where from the BC to the present times?

YEC's don't argue against micro-evolution. They argue against macro-evolutionism.

 

[dad]

But i just gave you an example of evidence, fossils. Have you not read a history book and seen how different the frames of humans and animals where from the BC to the present times?

Yes. Man and most animals likely coud not leave fossil remains in that former nature. We would not expect most life to be contained in the fossil record. What, you thought it was a representation of all life on earth!!!!!? No.

You on the other hand are refusing actual facts and instead enforcing the negative stereotype of Christianity when it comes to reason.

I have no interest in people's conceptions that actual belief in the bible is some negative thing. Get over it.

You can't even demonstrate nor show an example of evidence for your case other than then "this is what this book says, i think it's literal therefore I'm right and the rest is from satan". Yet here you are pointing fingers on no evidence?

My case in this thread was how woman got to the planet according to the bible, and how demon science teaches something else.

None of this involves fallen angels, demons, or satan.

he bile says anything that exalts itself or opposes Scripture is not of God actually.

2 Cor 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.


The word imaginations is the same meaning as demon science.

imaginations:

1. a reckoning, computation
2. a reasoning: such as is hostile to the Christian faith
3. a judgment, decision: such as conscience passes

Stop repeating such nonsense just for the sake of rejecting what you don't want to accept.

You are a very arrogant and unintelligent person.

1Co 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[dad]

But you still see land/earth existing in genesis so continents did exists.. and even if all contents where joined (as science says) it still wouldn't be day on all areas since the world is still a globe. so yes, which part of the land was day and which part was night?

Bingo! So where God hovered = light the far side of the word = dark!