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.
The Psalms tell us that we are each individually created by God in the womb, too. Does that mean that embryonic development is also evil? Is it similarly contrary to creation?
Man, neocreationist god-of-the-gaps theology is just... bogus.
In [1 Chronicles 3] we're shown David's son Nathan...
3:5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bath-shua the daugther of Ammiel;From the two sons of David came Mary and Joseph respectively.
Mary -The phrase, "as was supposed," placed in parenthesis to draw special attention to it means....as reckoned by law. Joseph was "begotten" by Jacob his natural father but he was the son-in-law (reckoned by law) son of Heli. So, Heli would be the father of Mary.
Luke 3:23,31 And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (31) Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatham, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Joseph -
Matthew 1:6,16 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; (16) And Jacob begat Joseph the husand of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ.
.
Please see post #85.
Why is it written that way? Well, He wasn't of an earthly father.
You need to read all of that chapter -- Mark 10 and Matthew 14. The Pharisees had asked Jesus his position on divorce, in the light of Deut 24:1. Jesus replied that a man -- Moses -- wrote scirpture and, in this case at least, he got it wrong. It is not persmissible for men to write out divorces whenever they want.
How does Jesus religiously justify his new policy? He goes back to Genesis 1:26 and uses Genesis as it was meant to be used: as a book about theology.
Yes, God created humans male and female. But He did so by evolution. And yes, it is possible to have organisms that reproduce asexually sometimes and sexually sometimes. The amoeba dictolystelium does so. So do many bacteria. The simplest sexually reproducing organisms are Volvox, who have only 2 types of cells: a somatic cell that makes up the hollow body of the volvox and then the germ cells. There are no males or females.
So yes, organisms evolved into male and female. But that still means that God created humans as male and female (by evolution) and it is still wrong for men to write out divorces from their wives whenever they please.
I don't understand. Please be more specific. See what as literal? What conflict?
.
Is it written that we are "created by God in the womb?" Please provide the verse.
.
And I guess if we were a tiny little organism I would care...we aren't, I don't. We are made IN HIS IMAGE. And we were created as such IN THE BEGINNING..MALE AND FEMALE. Find a scriptural reference to refute that, which hasn't been done, and I would be able to consider your position. Until then...it is a lie. I repeat:
Romans 1:21-23 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things..
He shows the difference Papias....
Germs, as we know....cause sickness and disease. Is knowledge of germs in conflict with His Word? No.
How is the knowledge of germs, which isn't a theory, in conflict with a "literal reading of the Bible?" Where is that? The real world exists and His Word stands.
God's word tells us Heli was Joseph's "as was supposed," father which would be....father-in-law.
No need. I didn't understand the point you were making.
WW wrote:
Doesn't that support evolution more than a literal reading? According to the evidence, male and female evolved concurrently, as Jesus says.
According to a literal reading of Genesis 2, on the other hand, God didn't make them male and female at the beginning. At the beginning (the earliest human) God made only the male. It was only after problems arose and alternatives were considered that God made female humans as an afterthought.
If Jesus had wanted to reaffirm a literal reading of the creation story, would he not have said "Have ye not read, that He Which made them at the beginning made the male. Then later on, He Which made the male, to provide a companion, then made a female," ?
Perhaps this is the reaffirmation of evolution by Jesus that you are looking for?
Papias
Or perhaps it simply to refers to the socially questionable circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth - seeing as it is placed next to Jesus' name, not Joseph's.
So why bother to include his genealogy then?
Let me google that for you
yea right, I'll make it easy for ya.
Psalms 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
You understand, none of us are portraying God as an animal or as anything subject to evolution. That being said, the bolded part of the scripture means absolutely nothing to the debate.
I know no one means to but by attributing the creation of man to evolution where creatures evolved into man...you are in a sense doing that very thing. That was the point of the OP.
.
Yup, that is always the excuse used to explain away the geneology conflict - one is legal, one is biological. And while it may be a possibility, there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case, so whether it's true it not, it's merely literalists trying to cherry pick what they like and what they don't.WW wrote:
I had to know that was coming. Please cite the verse that says that one is from Mary? It seems that creationists again show that they have no problem changing the Bible as they see fit.
It is also worth pointing out that there are not just two contradictory geneologies given, but three (see 1Chr. 3).
Papias
Yup, that is always the excuse used to explain away the geneology conflict - one is legal, one is biological. And while it may be a possibility, there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case, so whether it's true it not, it's merely literalists trying to cherry pick what they like and what they don't.
Evolution is a 100% fact, sorry. And the Bible is not the Word - Jesus Christ is. Stop worshipping a book!Evolution is a teaching in direct conflict with His Word. In others words, it is a lie.
.
No, actually evolution has quite a bit more evidence than those theories. As I understand it, we still don't grasp the theory of gravity too well.Evolution is a much bigger (wider) theory. In comparison, gravity, germs, atoms have many many more evidences.
Actually, according to Rabbinical commentary and textual study, God created man and woman at the same time. Eve wasn't the first woman - Lilith was, until Adam opposed woman being equal to him and Lilith rebelled, forcing God to have to create Eve in Genesis 2.No. Mankind was created male and female....Adam was formed male. Eve came later, and then the problems arose.
.
I mentioned this a few pages back, and I believe WW had claimed since Jesus is physical, so is God.Do the people that constantly bring up the "In His Image" think God has a internal Digestive Track, and other Body parts(Like us humans), or do they forget that God is a Spirit?
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?