Evolution vs. Creationism

[Tomk80]

Eh? I think that is a pretty easy connection to make.

Well, I never said it was hard. I just wanted Pilgrim 33 to back up his statements with scripture, which seems to be excruciatingly hard. That way I would know his arguments before I start trying to find holes in them, which avoids me making strawmen.

Courtesy of Biblegateway.com and studylight.org

Mt 25:41 - Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out , that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Satan Satanas adversary
Devil Diabolos devil,false accuser, slanderer
angel Aggelos Angel, messenger

Mark 3:22-23

Luke 11:14-19 Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. 15But some of them said, “By Beelzebub,[g] the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” 16Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

17Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 18If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. 19Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out?

demon Daimonion diety, spirit, evil spirit
Beelzeboul Lord of the house

The word in Job is transliterated as Satan, adversary, one who opposes, supernatural adversary.

Please note that the words Devil and Satan and Demon are not necessarily names, but rather descriptive terms.
In Job he is refered to as Satan, not the Devil.
'Is', or 'Was' still in God's service?
Which leaves timing up in the air...
Rev. 12 ties Satan (the dragon) to the serpent in Genesis. Without Revelation there doesn't seem to be much of a case for that conection, with Revelation it seems hard to avoid the connection.

Interesting connections, although it still seems to me that this does more to picture the development of the concept of the devil in judeo-christian thought. Also, IIRC, according to a number of christians the devil was cast out before creation, which would make Job somewhat contradictory. I'll look into it a bit more today or tomorrow and then write a more comprehensive answer.
Thanks for the interesting read.

 

[Tomk80]

How so?
Show me exactly how I have interpreted Job wrong.

How can I argue against a claim when it hasn't been backed up?

quoted for truth

 

[Arikay]

Robert, thanks for posting some of the scripture.

The problem is, the only thing of those scripture that suggests the devil is a fallen angel is Rev, which is often considered a phrophetic chapter, that hasn't happend yet. Since angel can also mean messenger, we do not know if it was actual Angels (such as God's angels) that were cast down, or the people who did the bidding of the Devil.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Read Job 2:6 again, it says, "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he [is] in thine hand."

The Lord didn't save Job, he handed him to satan, requesting only that satan spare his life. To hand Job over to satan, God must trust Satan

What the Scriptures say above and what you say are two completely different things. One is fact you have not yet come to fully realize; the other is your verbosely error ridden extrapolated opinion.

Chill out Pilgrim 33.

Tomk80, why do you think there is need of trust? Or are we casting omnipotence and omniscience out?

Job 2:6
NASB 6So the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life."
YLT 6And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Lo, he [is] in thy hand; only his life take care of.'
Message 6GOD said, "All right. Go ahead--you can do what you like with him. But mind you, don't kill him."

The only evidence for Satan having fallen before Job is Revelation, which implicitly (not explicitly) ties Satan to the Serpant in the Garden of Eden.

Indeed, Luke 10:17-19 17The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." 18And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning." suggests otherwise.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Robert, thanks for posting some of the scripture.

The problem is, the only thing of those scripture that suggests the devil is a fallen angel is Rev, which is often considered a phrophetic chapter, that hasn't happend yet.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAAAHAHAHA!
I apologize, but there are half a dozen ways of looking at Rev.
It most certainly should be approached cautiously.

Since angel can also mean messenger, we do not know if it was actual Angels (such as God's angels) that were cast down, or the people who did the bidding of the Devil.

In which case the question would be, what were they doing in Heaven in the first place?

 

[Arikay]

Rev is like the red headed step child of the bible. There are some that still don't think it should be canon.

In Rev, the casting down of satan and his angels is treated as the final victory against evil, but that sure hasn't happend yet. And going to Pilgrim33's theory, it couldn't fit with it since he treats the fall of satan as what damaged the world, not saved it.
If satan fell from heaven to earth, in Rev is his fall from earth into hell.
Of course, Rev could be largely metaphor to begin with, in which case it isn't describing actual events.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAAAHAHAHA!
I apologize, but there are half a dozen ways of looking at Rev.
It most certainly should be approached cautiously.
In which case the question would be, what were they doing in Heaven in the first place?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."
So, yes, "satan" was part of God's angels.

Please show respect for dignities and capitalize where grammar and respect are required.
[/QUOTE]
Arikay, it is a fairly common practice among anti-Christians to purposefully not capitalise God, Jesus, Christian, Bible... I suspect that Pilgrim saw your failure to capitalize 'satan' as disrespectful. As his quote from Rev. noted, Michael did not engage in name calling when he smote Satan.

Durned if I can figure out what is wrong with the quotes.

 

[Arikay]

I know it's proper to capitalize God, but I didn't know I should capitalize Satan out of respect to Satan. That seems a bit strange.
However, there was a reason I didn't captalize satan, because I wasn't talking about Satan (a proper name given to a specific creature) but about being "satan" or being an accuser or opposer of God. Since many have forgotten the original meaning of the word satan, it becomes hard to talk about being satan (someone who opposes or even spites God) without it being mistaken for the being Satan.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Rev is like the red headed step child of the bible. There are some that still don't think it should be canon.

Not so, not so at all; we cannot remove even one word without it falling apart. to remove Genesis would dissolve Revelation, and vice versa. The entire Bible is one unified whole.

In Rev, the casting down of satan and his angels is treated as the final victory against evil, but that sure hasn't happend yet.

True, it hasn't, yet; that's what makes a prophecy prophetic.

And going to Pilgrim33's theory, it couldn't fit with it since he treats the fall of satan as what damaged the world,

If satan fell from heaven to earth, in Rev is his fall from earth into hell.

He was cast out of heaven; he will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

not saved it.

Not possible; Satan is in no way a salvific figure.

Of course, Rev could be largely metaphor to begin with,

Not quite; it is predominantly allegory and (mixed in) symbolism.

in which case it isn't describing actual events.

Of course it is; that's the whole point of prophecy, foretelling what will happen, hidden until its time; hidden from everyone's (including Satan's) sight and understanding until its appointed time, that's why they're also referred to as "mysteries".

Mystery
3466 musterion {moos-tay'-ree-on}
from a derivative of muo (to shut the mouth); TDNT - 4:802,615; n n
AV - mystery 27; 27
1) hidden thing, secret, mystery
1a) generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the
initiated and not to ordinary mortals
1b) a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding
1c) a hidden purpose or counsel
1c1) secret will
1c1a) of men
1c1b) of God: the secret counsels which govern God in
dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from
ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly
3) in rabbinic writings, it denotes the mystic or hidden sense:
of an OT saying, of an image or form seen in a vision, of a dream

 

[InnerPhyre]

I love how the photo that showed the skulls of our ancestors all the way from Australopithecus Afrarensis all the way to Homo Sapiens one right after the other in perfect succession CLEARLY showing our evolution was completely ignored by the creationists who said evolutionists had no evidence or argument.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I love how the photo that showed the skulls of our ancestors all the way from Australopithecus Afrarensis all the way to Homo Sapiens one right after the other in perfect succession CLEARLY showing our evolution was completely ignored by the creationists who said evolutionists had no evidence or argument.

Even Leahy and followers backed off of that one considerably awhile back when Pithecus was dethroned.

Carbon dating is far from perfect. If, for example, bones of the Nephilim were dated would it read the age of the fallen demonic parent or the age of the human mother?

If the speed of light has, in fact, decreased since creation, as the scientific community has recently been questioning, then those carbon dates are even more off;

if the radio active elements were not turned on until the fall then that, too, presents more obstacles for humanism's evolution theory of religion.

And, now, DNA is blowing traditional evolutional theories even further out the window. So, new variants are now popping up to deceive the unwary willing.

The Nephilim weren't human, they were half-breeds, so how could carbon dating and DNA read this, even identify it? How could they read it as anything other than not (fully) human? Having never examined a Nephilim (not yet anyway) how could they even identify one as such? Would they even be able to distinguish between a Nephilim and a prehistoric Leahy monkey? I doubt it.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

being an accuser or opposer of God

It is not AN accuser. It is THE accuser. There is only one accuser.

Revelation 12:9-10, "And the great dragon......that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world......the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

 

[Pilgrim 33]

If God created a perfect universe then why is it, like everything else, dying?

 

[Mistermystery]

Carbon dating is far from perfect. If, for example, bones of the Nephilim were dated would it read the age of the fallen demonic parent or the age of the human mother?

there are bones of the Nephilim? please tell me where I can see them.

If the speed of light has, in fact, decreased since creation, as the scientific community has recently been questioning,

No that is again a lie, the scientific community has established that light is constant in a vaccuum for quite some time.

then those carbon dates are even more off;

But they are not, and C has little to do with c-14.

if the radio active elements were not turned on until the fall then that, too, presents more obstacles for humanism's evolution theory of religion.

The theory of evolution is not a religion as has been pointed out to you many times before. Evolution describes part of nature. It doesn't worship deities, it doesn't build shrines, it's not a set of rules to follow a certain ritual... it fails all possible descriubtions for the word religion.

Evolution has been allready proven not to be a religion:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974). [McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982]

And, now, DNA is blowing traditional evolutional theories even further out the window.

Unsupstantiated lie.

The Nephilim weren't human, they were half-breeds,

Where are these Nephilim again?

Having never examined a Nephilim (not yet anyway) how could they even identify one as such?

More logical it would seem that because tehre is no evidence for them, they never exsisted.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

In the end times, why destroy the heavens and the earth if only mankind and demonic angels are sinful unless the universe, too, was damaged by sin?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The theory of evolution is not a religion

Oh but it is, it is a direct offspring of the humanist religion.

It doesn't worship deities,

Oh but it does, humanists worship man.

More logical it would seem that because tehre is no evidence for them, they never exsisted.

Oh but they did, unlike humanism's evolutionary monkey ancestors.

 

[Ondoher]

Even Leahy and followers backed off of that one considerably awhile back when Pithecus was dethroned.

So which of these skulls would you like to contest? Which are human and which are ape?

 

[Ondoher]

The theory of evolution is not a religion

Oh but it is, it is a direct offspring of the humanist religion.

Which step of the scientific method was skipped to support evolution?

It doesn't worship deities,

Oh but it does, humanists worship man.

Science says nothing about anything supernatural.

More logical it would seem that because tehre is no evidence for them, they never exsisted.

Oh but they did, unlike humanism's evolutionary monkey ancestors.

See other post with skulls.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

...Pithecus was dethroned...
speed of light...
if the radio active elements were not turned on ...
And, now, DNA is blowing traditional evolutional theories...

I'll put this bluntly, you've been fed a load of hooee and swallowed it whole.
It has already been demonstrated that the data on the web page you posted about the fine structure constant had been superceded. Even if it hadn't the changes being talked about were miniscule.

Carbon dating is far from perfect. If, for example, bones of the Nephilim were dated would it read the age of the fallen demonic parent or the age of the human mother?

C-14 dating works by examining the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in an object that grows by getting it's carbon from the air (or from plants that get the carbon from the air). Regardless of whether something is human, plant or demon, if its structure is growing and being replaced and ultimately gets its carbon from the air, then carbon dating will work.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Sadly, today much of the fire and zeal has passed from the church, and is being replaced by a Christian form of humanism. Our faith is becoming feelings based. Churchmen and women despise God's Law, and engage in all manner of verbal gymnastics to avoid living on God's terms. It is difficult to accept that homosexuality is a sin worthy of punishment when we reject the same law that calls adultery a sin worthy of death.

We have invented an evolutionary theory of God. The austere and arbitrary God of the Old Testament has evolved into an altogether nicer fellow (much like us) in the New Testament. Seemingly this God no longer cares if we engage in sexual immorality, so long as we call it love and remain "faithful" to just one partner. This newer, nicer god no longer wants us to cleanse evil from our land by executing the murderer or rapist, now he wants us to love them and care for them by providing a warm prison cell, with colour televisions, stereos, gymnasiums, and turkey at Christmas time.

People who try to establish their lives on character without faith, on morality without roots have destroyed their future. The fact that the damage does not become apparent for many years does not negate the causal relationship.

Men and women who take the first steps into a false faith are also taking the first steps into spiritual blindness, they refuse to see the consequences of their actions. A carnal Christian doctrine produces people who are neither Christian, nor moral, it produces people who fail to see their blindness and nakednesss.

Ultimately this blindness leads to a complete rejection of the Lord's rule in their life. People who take bits and pieces of God's word at their own choosing believe that it is their will that controls their life. In effect they become god. They have in fact made their own "free will" an idol. For such people the Bible is indeed very harsh: for idolatry results in death.

Humanity today is mostly living without, or in complete indifference to God, because most believe in their own self-sufficiency, and have fallen (once again) for satain's lie to Eve. We have become gods in our own eyes, isolating events from causes and consequences.

Carnal Christians fail to see the damage that they are doing to their culture. The real power of the Body of Christ comes when believers stand up, prepared to be "counted." We have many positive influences to offer our society, but the "watered down" gospel produces few if any social effects.
-The Clarion Call