Evolution, Science, Creation

[shernren]

It is obvious to me. Roughly speaking, evolution predicts random mutations producing change in/of species. And death is the medium because survival decides which random mutation will be accepted. You can argue semantics but death, deadly violence, pain are part of this process.

And how do you know that death, deadly violence, and pain among animals was not part of God's pre-Fall plan?

 

[MyChristianForumID]

It is obvious to me. Roughly speaking, evolution predicts random mutations producing change in/of species. And death is the medium because survival decides which random mutation will be accepted. You can argue semantics but death, deadly violence, pain are part of this process.

And how do you know that death, deadly violence, and pain among animals was not part of God's pre-Fall plan?

I don't know. I wish I did know, then I could tell you. Wouldn't that be great. Unfortunately I cannot. The bible doesn't seem to say either way. I don't believe that it was part of God's plan.

I believe that the earth was created perfect in the beginning. Adam, Eve and the animals all loved (1 Corinthians 13) eachother.

I believe that pain, death, deadly violence (among humans and animals) was caused by the fall into sin. I believe that lucifer (satan, a powerful arch-angel) at that time was up to no good in heaven and earth because of his sin of pride. He pretended to be a serpent, and tempted Adam/Eve into the same notion. They went for it too. Then the entire creation was cursed along with Adam and Eve. This is not a popular view. Most people on earth would think this is blind ignorance.

It is a fact that this (above) world-view is one of the most attacked views on earth. Even by Christians. If so, then I may even conclude that it is the correct one for that very reason alone (among other reasons of faith). Look for the least popular religious views, and you've found the correct one /Joke/. Especially considering the bible teaches this world-view.

Alternatively, the first 2 chapters of Gods Word teach a mythical account, which seems to be the more in belief.

Whereas the bible never casts much doubt on it:

Man was created on a day:

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Deuteronomy 4:32

“For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard.

Woman was created from the rib of man, after man was created:

Genesis 2:21-22

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Adam did not come originally from a woman (birth) but by Gods work of creation:

1 Corinthians 11:8-9

For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:13

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Alternatively, the first 2 chapters of Gods Word teach a mythical account, which seems to be the more in belief.

Whereas the bible never casts much doubt on it:

God seems clueless about why Adam does not want to boink sheep...

Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found.

The real enemy of man is not Satan, but a talking snake, guess the NT was wrong to treat Genesis and not literal...

Genesis 3

The Fall of Man

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

I think taking Genesis too literaly can cause problems too.

 

[shernren]

It is a fact that this (above) world-view is one of the most attacked views on earth. Even by Christians. If so, then I may even conclude that it is the correct one for that very reason alone (among other reasons of faith). Look for the least popular religious views, and you've found the correct one /Joke/. Especially considering the bible teaches this world-view.

Alternatively, the first 2 chapters of Gods Word teach a mythical account, which seems to be the more in belief.

Christians heavily attack Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. Does that mean they are right?

... yes, often we Christians are laughed at by the world for being Christian. But sometimes we have to swallow our pride and admit that they are not laughing at us because we are Christian, but laughing at us because we are being plain silly.

Drop the martyr complex.

I don't know. I wish I did know, then I could tell you. Wouldn't that be great. Unfortunately I cannot. The bible doesn't seem to say either way. I don't believe that it was part of God's plan.

I believe that the earth was created perfect in the beginning. Adam, Eve and the animals all loved (1 Corinthians 13) eachother.

I don't believe that animals can practice 1 Corinthians 13 love, and I believe that animal death and predation was a part of God's pre-Fall world. To me sin did not directly transform God's wonderful creation (creation did not sin, so why should it be punished?) but instead, sin made man greedy and over the millenia man's greed has always hurt the environment.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I don't believe that animals can practice 1 Corinthians 13 love

You may be right to an extent. But God is love, and His creation reflected that before it fell with man.

yes, often we Christians are laughed at by the world for being Christian. But sometimes we have to swallow our pride and admit that they are not laughing at us because we are Christian, but laughing at us because we are being plain silly.

I believe it is more than laughter. That is part of it. But also it is a spiritual warfare.

sin made man greedy and over the millenia man's greed has always hurt the environment

I agree with that.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found.

God seems clueless about why Adam does not want to boink sheep...

I understand what you are implying, but let's have some respect where respect is due. God did not want Adam to ... sheep. God was looking for a suitable helper for him. As I pointed out in my previous posts, the rest of the bible confirms the truth of the creation story, not the mythology of it.

Genesis 3

The Fall of Man

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

The real enemy of man is not Satan, but a talking snake, guess the NT was wrong to treat Genesis and not literal...

I think taking Genesis too literaly can cause problems too.

You don't think satan was in the snake in this verse? Satan entered the snake and spoke.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I understand what you are implying, but let's have some respect where respect is due. God did not want Adam to ... sheep. God was looking for a suitable helper for him. As I pointed out in my previous posts, the rest of the bible confirms the truth of the creation story, not the mythology of it.

I agree the Bible confirms the truth of the Genesis story, but truth does not equal literal history. That is a modernistic philosophy that did not even exist at the time of the writing of the Bible. I do not discount the theological truths behind the story, they are the most important since it is those theological truths that Christianity is based on. But calling a document historical without outside evidence backing it up is bad logic and bad theology.

You don't think satan was in the snake in this verse? Satan entered the snake and spoke.

What verses back this demon possession of a snake idea? If read as simple history the text seems pretty clear that it is just a snake. If the NT is right in that the snake in the story was representing Satan then it shows that this part of Genesis is clearly not strict history, but more like a parable.

 

[shernren]

You may be right to an extent. But God is love, and His creation reflected that before it fell with man.

What sort of love? How do you know it's not this love?

6 Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.

7 Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of his house for love,
it would be utterly scorned.

(Song of Solomon 8)

... I don't know, but it seems to me like a major problem in Western popular theology is that when we start talking about how "God is love" we are immediately filled with mushy images of that love: something more akin to a emoticised eros than agape. We take our cue of love from sappy movies, from heartwarming anecdotes. It's a mistake a Christian in relative poverty and simplicity of life, say in China, would never make. "God is love" is not "God is cuddly".

God's love has demanded the extermination of the native Canaanites, the death of a priest simply for touching the Ark, the death of His very own Son, and more extermination and death at the end of the world. It's not a stretch of the imagination to imagine this love inventing predation ... especially when predation is the key to making every vast and beautiful pristine ecosystem in the world stable and healthy.

I believe it is more than laughter. That is part of it. But also it is a spiritual warfare.

Spiritual warfare? ... so what shall we do? Bind the demons of evolution and the Big Bang?

Evolution is far less a spiritual issue than other areas of science, such as interpretation of quantum physics. That is where the church is at least 35 years behind. Christianity has developed a Christian way to understand evolutionism, namely TEism. It still hasn't developed a cohesive, usable interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now this is the field of science where the Christian faith has no say: every quantum phenomenon I know of has been interpreted with Hindu or Zen Buddhist ideas, but not Christian.

You're right about evolution being spiritual warfare ... it's the diversion. The real battle is somewhere else and nearly everybody has no idea.

 

[gluadys]

You don't think satan was in the snake in this verse? Satan entered the snake and spoke.

Well it doesn't say that in Genesis.

Let us not confuse interpretations of the text with the text itself.

When you connect Satan with the snake you are saying the snake is not literally a snake. You are interpreting the snake as being something different or more than a literal snake.

And you are importing that interpretation from somewhere else, since the text itself does not suggest it.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I agree the Bible confirms the truth of the Genesis story, but truth does not equal literal history. That is a modernistic philosophy that did not even exist at the time of the writing of the Bible. I do not discount the theological truths behind the story, they are the most important since it is those theological truths that Christianity is based on. But calling a document historical without outside evidence backing it up is bad logic and bad theology.

Agreed. The key is to know how to interpret the imagery. The serpent may or may not be literal, but I believe and was taught that this is the devil or satan or Lucifer.

What verses back this demon possession of a snake idea? If read as simple history the text seems pretty clear that it is just a snake. If the NT is right in that the snake in the story was representing Satan then it shows that this part of Genesis is clearly not strict history, but more like a parable.

The footnote in my NIV bible says that "The great deceiver clothed himself as a serpent, one of God's good creatures." Perhaps this is not demon possession but somehow it is the devil being portrayed. The devil led humans astray. My footnote for this verse also refers to the following verses.

Revelation 12:9

The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angles with him.

Revelation 20:2

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[MyChristianForumID]

What sort of love? How do you know it's not this love?

6 Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.

7 Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of his house for love,
it would be utterly scorned.

(Song of Solomon 8)

I don't know. This seems more like somebodys rantings. There is this type of prose in the bible as well.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Well it doesn't say that in Genesis.

Let us not confuse interpretations of the text with the text itself.

When you connect Satan with the snake you are saying the snake is not literally a snake. You are interpreting the snake as being something different or more than a literal snake.

And you are importing that interpretation from somewhere else, since the text itself does not suggest it.

I don't know if it is a literal snake or not. I believe though, that this is the devil.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know if it is a literal snake or not. I believe though, that this is the devil.

That's fine. As long as you are aware that this is an interpretation of the text and not the literal meaning of the text.

The text does not say the snake is Satan or possessed by Satan. Biblical interpreters say that (like the interpreters who put the footnote in your NIV bible.)

And it is the text that is inspired. The interpreters are not.


And please note, I am not making any comment as to whether the interpretation is right or wrong. I am not prepared to make that call.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

That's fine. As long as you are aware that this is an interpretation of the text and not the literal meaning of the text.

I am.

 

[JediMobius]

Rev 12:9 "The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan. . ."

Since God sticks to his themes when he inspires the writings of the bible, I would think it safe to assume that any reference to the snake or the serpent is indeed the devil.

But, I'm only human after all

 

[shernren]

Those rantings are canonized Scripture.

 

[gluadys]

Rev 12:9 "The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan. . ."

Since God sticks to his themes when he inspires the writings of the bible, I would think it safe to assume that any reference to the snake or the serpent is indeed the devil.

But, I'm only human after all

Revelation is external to Genesis. Applying any portion of Revelation to Genesis is interpretation. After all, they were written hundreds of years apart and by different writers.

Even this phrase from Revelation does not refer explicitly to Genesis, so one has to make the mental connection apart from the actual text. That's interpretation.



Doesn't mean it is a wrong interpretation. Just that it is interpretation. You don't get this connection from the text, but through interpretation of the text.

 

[disciple777]

1) Evolution and Creationism is not a true science.
It is more accurately called a religion. People put a "cap" (an end idea) like God created everything, or the Big Bang created everything and then try to find evidence in science that proves their "cap" to be true.

What people should do is look at true pure science and see where it leads. From my research the only thing that really makes the most sense out of pure science is creationism, pure science seems to go very much against Evolution.

2) Creation/Evolution not a proven truth?
For people who have had true visions from God or have spoken to Him and have seen answers to prayer by Him have proof that there is a God so that Creation must be correct if there is a God. There is a problem... people lie far to much (one lie is far to much), so visions and answers to prayers that people tell others about are always subject to investigation... so sometimes the only person who has the pure evidence of the truth is the one who had the experience of the vision or answer to prayer. So therefore to truely know that God exists is to have communication with Him.

Within Evolution this kind of Evidence is impossible.

Very well said. Personal revelation is a very tricky. This has and is still misguiding many sincere believers. As far as Creation/ evolution is concerned, it is the wisdom of God and the knowledge of God which alone can show the Truth. I was an atheist and I was a strong believer in Evolution for many years. It was a miracle that I met Christ and He changed my life. After this, I did thorough research on Evolution. I could no longer accept this as fact. True reasoning will not allow anyone to follow Evolution. Logic and reasoning do not apply to Evolution. Truth alone will prevail.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Very well said. Personal revelation is a very tricky. This has and is still misguiding many sincere believers. As far as Creation/ evolution is concerned, it is the wisdom of God and the knowledge of God which alone can show the Truth. I was an atheist and I was a strong believer in Evolution for many years. It was a miracle that I met Christ and He changed my life. After this, I did thorough research on Evolution. I could no longer accept this as fact. True reasoning will not allow anyone to follow Evolution. Logic and reasoning do not apply to Evolution. Truth alone will prevail.

That is great news that you have accepted Christ. God bless you. And I agree with your points.

 

[gluadys]

I was an atheist and I was a strong believer in Evolution for many years.

I have seen many people who give this testimony. That is a good reason not to believe in evolution but to learn about it for yourself.

Uninformed belief in evolution can be easily dissipated by the pseudo-science of creationism.


Informed knowledge about evolution shows up how poor the science of creationism is.

Good theology does not deny truth, whether in scripture or in science.