Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

[dad]

Correct. I’ve said that before, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

All references to the garden and Adam and creation are just people who ignorantly wrote in the bible in your mind then I guess.

 

[Archivist]

It is plainly written as a real account.

Pretty strange for an allegory to have specific details like dates and ages.
(On the 600th year of Noah's life on the 2nd month and the 17th day, etc..... assuming you believe the Genesis flood was an allegory as well....)

It's almost as if it is written just like an actual historical account... of things that actually happened.

So why the forced allegorical interpretation? Is it more important to have the respect of men than to believe God's word?

What "forced allegorical interpretation." No one is forcing me to read the account as allegory.

You are entitled to your interpretation, just as I am entitled to mine. BTW, if it written just like an actual historical account of things that actually happened, why are we given two differing creation accounts?

 

[Archivist]

All references to the garden and Adam and creation are just people who ignorantly wrote in the bible in your mind then I guess.

Nice when people have to start resorting to insult.

As I said, you are free to have your interpretation.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Ok, so there is historical and scientific arguments supporting it.. and what does this have anything to do about the creation in Genesis being metaphorical?

Well once science thought it was metaphoric destruction,now science proves it happened
the way the bible records.

Once science held Darwin theory, now debunked.

Even mother Eve, science says only lived 2000,000
years ago now, not 2.5 billion like they first believed.

This figure would be only around 6,000 years if science
used the right mutation rate.

They also found the common y male gene is not as
old as thought, only going back as far as Noah and sons, using the correct mutation rate.

That science continues to confirm the bible accounts.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a704d4_f5f5f851384f4767889ad115b1e52f65.pdf

 

[Cis.jd]

Well once science thought it was metaphoric destruction,now science proves it happened the way the bible records.

Once science held Darwin theory, now debunked.

Even mother Eve, science says only lived 2000,000
years ago now, not 2.5 billion like they first believed.

This figure would be only around 6,000 years if science
used the right mutation rate.

They also found the common y male gene is not as
old as thought, only going back as far as Noah and sons, using the correct mutation rate.

That science continues to confirm the bible accounts.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a704d4_f5f5f851384f4767889ad115b1e52f65.pdf

No one ever made an actual claim that destruction of Sodom was completely metaphorical, most apologists where open to that possibility until scientific evidence manages to confirm it. This is still disputed amongst Theologians.

Your sentence of science holding the darwin theory, now debunked is a false claim. You act as if ones a new theory comes in then every scientist automatically closes it case and deems it 100% accurate as proposed.

Everything else going to the bottom is just false, for example that 2.5 Billion was first believed, where did you get this from? It's like you went and jumped into new topics after you unintentionally proved my points with Gen 1:23 and Ep 5:30.

The event that transformed Earth
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/25-billion-years-of-earth-history-in-100-square-feet/
Many people still reject Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution

 

[trophy33]

First we need to know the Author. Otherwise you get confused.

You do not believe that Bible had human authors (Paul, Mark, Luke, Salomon etc.)?

You think that everything in the Bible is God speaking?

 

[Semper-Fi]

Your sentence of science holding the darwin theory,
now debunked is a false claim.

I do believe in God, after which humans were designed.
The phrase “theory of evolution” confuses many people since scientists specifically refer to it as fact.

Hundreds Of Scientists Debunk Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution

Lets start with Ernest Haeckel fraud in the mid-1800s.
This fraud was known and published as early as 1894

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least 10 major biology textbooks published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin’s evolution hypothesis.

These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote what they call the “theory” of evolution.

Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book,
On the Origin of Species,

-
Or the faked pictures of "the peppered moths"This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

Or :The Improbability of Evolution
World News, Economics and Analysis Based on Bible Prophecy

 

[Cis.jd]

I do believe in God, after which humans were designed.
The phrase “theory of evolution” confuses many people since scientists specifically refer to it as fact.

Hundreds Of Scientists Debunk Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution

I'm not going to argue about specific scientific disagreements with in Darwin's TOE. I myself don't accept everything he proposed but the main point about evolution can't be (and isn't rejected) by science or any theologian. These scientists are only debunking specifics with in the Theory not it's entirety. St Augustine proposed evolution (not the way Darwin worded it) before 500+ years before Darwin existed.

Evolution poses as evidence for God, watch this clip of William L Craig's vs Christopher Hitchens.

 

[dad]

Nice when people have to start resorting to insult.

As I said, you are free to have your interpretation.

It was an attempt at nailing your position clearly....need some correction?

 

[dad]

You do not believe that Bible had human authors (Paul, Mark, Luke, Salomon etc.)?

You think that everything in the Bible is God speaking?

No. But apostles were inspired. Others are quoted showing they were not perfect...like the captive Jews wishing to dash people's kids on stones..etc.

Creation and Adam and Eve are themes in the bible..not isolated.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Evolution poses as evidence for God

No evolution is a lie againest Gods Word.
God made animals after there kind,
not evolve from slime or fish.

Humans where made in the likeness and image
of God, not evolve from apes.

 

[-57]

How do you want to have answer for this disobedience? What do you even mean?

In the text, we can read about disobedience. What does it represent, if really some eating from a literal tree or something deeper, nobody can know for certain. But it does not put away the message that people disobeyed God.

You can go as deep as you like...but they were instructed not to eat from the tree.

It most certainly puts away the message that people disobeyed God. People as in a evolving population. The bible doesn't teach that and you have no verse to support that concept. You have beed presented with many verses that show it was Adam and eve so I'm not going to waste my time re-posting them.

Yes, people (the human race) does disobey God. The bible give a reason why people disobey God. The reason is they have inherited a sin nature. The people of the human race belong to a fallen race.

You on the other hand have no biblical support for your theorized doctrine. None.

 

[-57]

Can animals sin? What is a sin? You need some Law from God and a higher intelect to have a possibility to sin.

Where does the bible teach that evolving man developed a higher intellect and then could sin?

What was Gods remedy for one of the advanced primates that developed this higher intellect and sinned?

 

[Archivist]

It was an attempt at nailing your position clearly....need some correction?

But your exact words were "All references to the garden and Adam and creation are just people who ignorantly wrote in the bible in your mind then I guess." That is just rude, because I have said over and over that it is an allegory. In case you don't understand the word allegory, it means "the expression by means of symbolic figures and actions of truths about human existence." It isn't ignorantly "writing in the bible in my mind. Apparently your mother didn't teach you manners.

 

[JacksBratt]

I do believe in God, after which humans were designed.
The phrase “theory of evolution” confuses many people since scientists specifically refer to it as fact.

Hundreds Of Scientists Debunk Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution

Lets start with Ernest Haeckel fraud in the mid-1800s.
This fraud was known and published as early as 1894

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least 10 major biology textbooks published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin’s evolution hypothesis.

These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote what they call the “theory” of evolution.

Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book,
On the Origin of Species,

-
Or the faked pictures of "the peppered moths"This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

Or :The Improbability of Evolution
World News, Economics and Analysis Based on Bible Prophecy

Not to mention Piltown man, Lucy, Nebraska man and others that are total frauds, still taught as fact....

The determination, of so called accredited men, to keep a hoax alive.... is pathetic..... but not as pathetic as the fact that they are taught as fact today, in schools.

 

[Archivist]

Not to mention Piltown man, Lucy, Nebraska man and others that are total frauds, still taught as fact....

First of all, it is Piltdown Man.

Second, I am not aware of any schools where Piltdown Man is still taught as fact. Examples please...

 

[Archivist]

Just out of curiosity, how many of those posting here who believe in a literal reading of Genesis also believe that the wine and bread of Holy Communion is the actual blood and body of Jesus? I have noticed in past discussions that often those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis do not read Matthew 26:26-28 literally.

 

[JacksBratt]

Here, at the northern tip of the Dead Sea, we have
scientific corroboration for a biblical miracle.

Seems science confirms the area was destroyed
by fire and brimstone from above literally.
Tall el-Hammam is biblical Sodom - The Cosmic Tusk

What it does is prove the bible accurate in this event.
If a christian does not believe the word of God by
faith, not sure if they are even a christian.

"Sadly, many Christian scholars have accepted the false "science versus faith" dichotomy.Worse, some have even taken the “science over faith” position, although they would still say they are people of faith.

Thus, many have decided that evolutionary theory trumps Scripture, and they seek to “harmonize”the Bible with evolutionary theory.

Tragically, most Christian thought-leaders are ignorant of major scientific advances that both discredit the monkey-to-man perspective and support the biblical view of a literal, recent Adam and Eve. "

The bible says one day the dead sea area will
once again be teaming with life, and people will
line the banks fishing there.

So do you believe God will heal this area,
or is this not literally ?

Is there any evidence of volcano's at the north end of the Dead Sea? Nope.

 

[JacksBratt]

First of all, it is Piltdown Man.

Second, I am not aware of any schools where Piltdown Man is still taught as fact. Examples please...

Oh yes.. Piltdown.. thanks.

And... If this hoax is not taught.. good. Three out of three would be better... I'll take what small progress we can get.

I have had too many TE's argue all of these, and many more hoaxes, to be true.

If the farce of these hoaxes was significantly taught as the huge hoax that it is.. I would not be getting the arguments in regards to these fakes.

 

[JacksBratt]

Just out of curiosity, how many of those posting here who believe in a literal reading of Genesis also believe that the wine and bread of Holy Communion is the actual blood and body of Jesus? I have noticed in past discussions that often those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis do not read Matthew 26:26-28 literally.

Sorry. The wine and bread are "elements", "icons", "representatives" of the blood and body of Christ. We participate to show our belief and remembrance of Christ's actual work on the cross.


I think that the belief that it is the actual blood and body is a RC view.