Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OK. Since you claim the theory of evolution is 100% evil, I'm sure that you must have some credible evidence to substantiate the claim. Would you mind presenting that so that others can examine it. (Hint: That the theory may upset your interpretation of Genesis or creation doesn't count.)Science discovers facts, which could be evil or not evil.
Evolution is a theory. It could be (i.e. is) 100% evil.
The finished home, which is my point. Evolution does not mean God resembled an ape, it us human beings he calls his image and likeness.No, God doesn't resemble mud nor does He have the appearance of an ape. To construct something you must use materials in order to build the image you strive to achieve....do you consider the image to be the lumber, nails and dry wall or....the finished home?
God is creator whether he used mud or evolution.Yes it does and how did that happen? Because it was "created" that way from the beginning....it did not evolve.
.
Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories. Are they 100% evil, especially considering they have less evidentiary support than evolution?Science discovers facts, which could be evil or not evil.
Evolution is a theory. It could be (i.e. is) 100% evil.
I hate to break it to you, but being made in the image of God, has absolutely nothing to do with our physical appearance. It refers to our unique ability to reason and use logic. God is not a physical entity, so Genesis was most certainly making no referrence to looks.No, God doesn't resemble mud nor does He have the appearance of an ape. To construct something you must use materials in order to build the image you strive to achieve....do you consider the image to be the lumber, nails and dry wall or....the finished home?
.
Creationists have to skew the order of either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 because the two chapters describe creation taking place on a completely different order.
What genealogy? Matthew 1 only goes back to Abraham while Luke 3 is not even Jesus' genealogy, it is what people supposed his genealogy was. Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat...
Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.
Look at the reason no plant had grown, the ground was dry and there wasn't a man to work the ground. How does this fit the creation of plants on day three which grew without a man being created for another three days? In Genesis 1, it wasn't that plants hadn't grown because there was no rain, the ground had been deep underwater that very morning and the reason plants did not grow between God creating the land in Gen 1:9 and plants in Gen 1:11 is that there weren't any seeds and there wasn't enough time anyway. Not as we read in Genesis 2, that there hadn't been rain and there was no gardener.
But an even bigger problem is when God created beasts and birds. In Genesis 1 the birds are created on day 5 and the beasts on day 6 before God created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man first, then the beasts and the birds, and then God makes the woman.
Genesis 1: plants, birds, beasts, then man and woman
Genesis 2: man, plants, beasts and birds, then woman
The finished home, which is my point. Evolution does not mean God resembled an ape, it us human beings he calls his image and likeness.
God is creator whether he used mud or evolution.
The creation of the world by our Father, I believe, must be understood in His reckoning of time.....
11 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.Before Adam was God's time...after the formation of Adam is man's time.
The "rain" and "man to till the ground" has a much deeper meaning but...at face value you're right....there was no rain. However, He explains that before the rain....
Genesis 2:5-6 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
There are beasts and then...there are beasts. Some animal, some human.
Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.That doesn't refer to animals, at least...not animals such as lions, tigers and bears.
Consider too that on one level Adam was formed to till the ground. The first men were to subdue the earth and had dominion over all creatures. But, with Adam, who was to farm....
Genesis 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Does this refer to domestic animals, those used to farm....oxen, horses, poultry, cows, goats, etc.?
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
.
Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories. Are they 100% evil, especially considering they have less evidentiary support than evolution?
Do they, in any way, contradict His Word?
.
I hate to break it to you, but being made in the image of God, has absolutely nothing to do with our physical appearance. It refers to our unique ability to reason and use logic. God is not a physical entity, so Genesis was most certainly making no referrence to looks.
So, in other words, we take Genesis 1 completely literally and Genesis 2 figuratively where it conflicts?
Not at all. You can, or should, understand both on both levels. There is no conflict only misunderstanding.
.
Yes, Luke shows the geneaology of Joseph, step-father to Christ, who was descended from king David. But, in that genealogy we are also shown the lineage of Abraham from Adam and from Abraham to David. Then in Matthew we can go from David to Christ.
His genealogy is given.
Thank you for clarifying that, Whirlwind. Now that we know you're not anti-science, let's go on to your next issue in the statement above.
Evolution from ape to man ... You speak in an absolute sense here, yet seem to be ignoring the results of science. The methods of science have revealed that men and other primates share substantially similar genetics. I seem to recall something like 98% commonality with chimpanzees (but I'm just working from memory on that so the exact number may be slightly different). At any rate, our physical bodies share a great deal in common with other primates. This genetic similarity allows certain diseases to cross between men and some primates.
We also know with absolute certainty that genetic material can be altered and that such alteration occurs naturally as part of God's natural laws. Men have also altered genetic material for specific purposes, such as herding sheep. Are you familiar with Shetland sheepdogs or Border collies? Both these dogs were bred by man specifically for working sheep.
So, in many ways the theory of evolution has been proven. Granted there are still many unknowns. Any legitimate geneticist would admit as much. That's true of all science, by the way. Every aspect of every discipline is open to question.
As with the Bible, you can expect people to argue their favorite theories, but evidence is what carries the argument. Sure, there are bad apples, as evidenced by "global warming", but ultimately the "fakers" are relegated to the trash heap, as happened with the global warming hoax.
You seem to have an issue with anyone who says man evolved from apes. I'm not sure why that should cause you, or anyone else here, consternation. I seem to recall a discussion here not very long ago where it was determined that the word "beast", as used in the Bible, was clearly referring to individuals in human bodies who were not considered to be men. The mere fact that the Bible describes beasts in human bodies might be a clue.
On much we agree (but we already knew that, didn't we?) Even on this board it is a rare thread where someone doesn't claim their interpretation of some aspect of the Bible to be absolute truth, causing numerous readers to then scratch their heads and wonder, huh?
Oh well ... God has not granted any of us to know all things. (At least that's been my experience, so far.) We are each very limited in our ability and understanding. I certainly can't speak for you, but my God-given mathematical abilities, which in my youth I thought were good, are so limited that I can't compete against a $2.00 calculator either in accuracy or computational speed.
Jesus had to speak in parables because men wouldn't understand otherwise. The parables allowed them to understand bits and pieces more clearly, even though it wasn't granted them that they should understand all things.
LOL. My apologies if I misunderstood. I thought you were vilifying evolution.
OK. So you are vilifying evolution? I'm confused?
The great apes, as I understand it, have a generally much more pleasant disposition than men do. :o
WW - Evolution is anti-Bible unless the things He created weren't created "after his kind."
Nah. It's more like evolution just punched one of your buttons. Or, more likely, the buttons of somebody in your church. Evolution, per se, is no more evil than a thousand other things I could list for you which are not considered evil.
Things like leading into captivity, killing, and lieing are evil. Evolution is simply an attempt to search for truth -- possibly errant -- but not wantonly contrary to God or God's laws.
Well good. Again, we agree.
Meteorology does.
Job 36:32 - He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.
Job 37:11 - He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.
Job 30:22 - Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail
Evil secular meteorologists would have you believe that weather is a natural, random phenomenon, but the bible tells us differently.
So, if we are to understand both on both levels, then how are we to determine what must be 100% literal - such as 7 days - and what is figurative?
As a EC (evolutionary creationist), I've had to come to terms with this question, and develop rules for determining when and if I can read a piece of scripture figuratively. I have yet to hear from a YEC/OEC who has developed a similar set of rules. The best I've heard is, "it's obvious", but many times I struggle to see why what they claim is so obvious.
In the end, I think a decision is made - such as YEC - and then scripture is made "obvious" because, with that assumption, other options are limited or untenable. That seems to be dangerous theology to me because if the original assumption is wrong then the entire interpretation is probably wrong.
Well, two different accounts of his genealogy are given anyway.
One is that of his step-father Joseph. The other is of Mary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?