Evolution

[1whirlwind]

WW wrote:



That's exactly the point you seem to be missing. Jesus said "they were created male and female", which confirms evolution (where male and female evovled concurrently), and contradicts your literal reading of Genesis 2, where God didn't make them male and female from the start, but rather made the male first and the female later.

It is written...."So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

As it refers to "them," being created then "man" would be many....mankind, as in the human race of man. Mankind is created in His image and He created them male and female. Why? So they would "Be fruitful and multiply." It isn't written that He created them to eventually evolve into His image and eventually be able to multiple and replenish the earth.

After the seventh day (which I see as 7000 years [2Pet.3:8]) He needed someone...a particular someONE to "till the ground." Is this speaking of true cultivation and farming? Yes, I think so but what is really meant is Adam was formed (not created) for a specific purpose....God walked with him, taught him and he was to teach mankind about our Father...till the soil, the earth, mankind.

Adam is special, shown as The Man Adam or eth ha addam. His formation was much later than that of mankind. From him came Eve. From his rib? Rib in Hebrew is "curve." I think it more likely that Eve was taken from Adam, from the helix curve...his DNA. She didn't evolve from him but they were one...bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh.

So which is it? Was mankind created male and female, as Jesus said, which is consistent with the evolution of male and female concurrently through evolution, OR, was man made only as a male first, by mouth to nose recusitation on a mudpie, as a literal interpretation (only) of Genesis says?

Yes...mankind was created male and female....all at the same time so they could multiple and replenish the earth.

Jesus himself is telling you your interpretation is wrong, and that genesis uses metaphor.

You ignored these points:

• Germ theory is in contradiction to the Bible, and as Lucaspa and I both pointed out, the very section from Mt that you provided shows this. Yet you aren't out there saying that Germ theory is evil

But you haven't pointed it out. You aren't rightly dividing the Word if you see evil spirits being the cause of sickness. They are shown separately. There is demonic possession...evil spirits that cause terrible things in a body but there is also illness. There is no contradiction in illness, sickness and germs. There is no mention of the cause of the maladies so...why not germs, bacteria and such? What is the contradiction?

• Germ theory is a theory, could you please explain what a theory is, to show us that you now understand that many theories are facts?

I don't know why you term germs as being a theory when they are fact. Getting back to evolution...I don't see it as a theory at all. I see it as a lie.

Do you agree that the idea that Heli was Joseph's father in law contradicts the clear text of Luke, which states that Heli was Joseph's father?

I do have questions about the genealogies...even more than you have written of. But, what does this have to do with evolution?

• Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally?

I haven't looked into them for quite a time now. There was an additional point that could be added to the study but I hesitate to bring it up in this thread. Evolution or genealogy....that is the question/topic?

If you agreed on these bulleted points or otherwise responded on a post I missed, I apologize in advance. I mention them because dropping a point without agreeing on it should not be done if the conversation is to be honest & respectful.

Have a blessed day-

Papias

Also-

Achillies wrote:


Do you really think that scientists in the relevant fields are somehow unaware of that so called "evidence"? They've looked at it (and many of them are Christian), and it's bogus - often simple fraud, nearly always distorted. They've even bothered to respond, see Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition.

I'm not sure why you included that here? Is there a question in it for me?

I do agree with you....the conversation should be honest and respectful...and you have been. I thank you.



.

 

[sfs]

It is written...."So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

As it refers to "them," being created then "man" would be many....mankind, as in the human race of man. Mankind is created in His image and He created them male and female. Why? So they would "Be fruitful and multiply." It isn't written that He created them to eventually evolve into His image and eventually be able to multiple and replenish the earth.

After the seventh day (which I see as 7000 years [2Pet.3:8]) He needed someone...a particular someONE to "till the ground." Is this speaking of true cultivation and farming? Yes, I think so but what is really meant is Adam was formed (not created) for a specific purpose....God walked with him, taught him and he was to teach mankind about our Father...till the soil, the earth, mankind.

Adam is special, shown as The Man Adam or eth ha addam. His formation was much later than that of mankind. From him came Eve. From his rib? Rib in Hebrew is "curve." I think it more likely that Eve was taken from Adam, from the helix curve...his DNA. She didn't evolve from him but they were one...bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh.

So which Adam is being described in Genesis 5:1-3?
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth."

 

[1whirlwind]

You're missing out on the fact that we're not teaching something that totally refutes what is written in scripture. We (I) fully believe in the inspiration of scripture and its inerrancy. However, "inerrancy" means that it is absolutely true for the purpose for which it was written; there is no guarantee that it will keep its truth in the case of misuse.

Is that statement....crawfishing? Sorry, couldn't help it.

His Word is the truth. Where there is truth there is no lie. It won't change with time.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

So which Adam is being described in Genesis 5:1-3?
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth."

The Adam formed on the eighth day. The Adam from whom Christ would come. The "first man" in the line to Christ.


.

 

[Cabal]

What part didn't happen as written?

Not 6000 years old, didn't take six days to create (for starters)

Evidence of what?

Evidence that evolution is not true (besides your opinion on what the Bible says, naturally).

Correct interpretations do not ever contradict the plain meaning. They enhance, they explain but they don't contradict.

Unless it's the genealogies of Christ, then this tenet is swiftly dispensed with

 

[crawfish]

Is that statement....crawfishing? Sorry, couldn't help it.

His Word is the truth. Where there is truth there is no lie. It won't change with time.


.

Why are you selectively quoting me? The bolded parts, by themselves, would be completely out of the context and contain a different meaning than I intended.

Which, of course, is my point about misusing scripture. Are the very words so holy that I can assemble them in any order I want and still retain their power? No, of course not. You can't do it with words and you can't do it with verses and you can't even always do it with paragraphs. Scripture has power and authority in its intention.

 

[1whirlwind]

Bible=/=science handbook. But I'm sure we all knew that bronze age goat herders and the like would understand modern biology. God made reality. Reality seems to indicate that organisms evolve. Theists who deny evolution deny God.

The bible was not just written for goat herders or by goat herders. Our Father wrote it for us, for all time...it does not change.


I deny evolution. I do not deny God.

Romans 1:22-23 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.


.
​

 

[1whirlwind]

Why are you selectively quoting me? The bolded parts, by themselves, would be completely out of the context and contain a different meaning than I intended.

Which, of course, is my point about misusing scripture. Are the very words so holy that I can assemble them in any order I want and still retain their power? No, of course not. You can't do it with words and you can't do it with verses and you can't even always do it with paragraphs. Scripture has power and authority in its intention.

Selectively quoted you? Your entire post was quoted. I bolded the parts I was replying to.....

You're missing out on the fact that we're not teaching something that totally refutes what is written in scripture. We (I) fully believe in the inspiration of scripture and its inerrancy. However, "inerrancy" means that it is absolutely true for the purpose for which it was written; there is no guarantee that it will keep its truth in the case of misuse.

How did I misrepresent what you were saying? I wouldn't purposely do that and apologize if the bolding takes your thought out of context.

I agree that Scripture has power and authority. When it is written that something happened then...that something happened as written. I fully understand that there are written things that aren't completely understood until seen in a spiritual light. But, it is Scripture, as guided by the Holy Spirit, that brings greater understanding. For that reason I asked...are there any other Scriptural teachings that refute what is written about the creation of man?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

First, you need to define "evolution". One succinct definition that would be consistent with Darwin's theory comes from biologist Douglas Futuyma's 2005 book "Evolution":

"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

I find that definition rather tame and very misleading. The evolution I speak of is the one warping the minds of our children. You know, the one where apes become man.

O.K. so now a Bible verse:

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And so my first question to you is:

Were Adam and Eve White folk, Indian folk, Chinese folk, Black folk, etc.?

My first answer is...the verse you quoted has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

And my second question then is:

So how did all the other human beings with their unique and inherited characteristics come to be, except through evolution?

.

My second answer would be...all humans, all races of man-kind were created on the sixth day. The man Adam was formed after the seventh day.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Why am I not surprised you haven't any idea what Timothy is referring to (hint: "All-scripture" doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible).

It's amazing to me that fundies continue to quote that verse as evidence of a perfect Bible when 1) it says nothing about perfection and 2) there was no Bible when that was written.

Why am I not surprised that you continue to be rather rude. Why do you feel it is necessary?


Scriptures are Scriptures and have always been. Whether they are collected in a Bible, or on a roll of papyrus. They don't change...at least until man began to translate new and improved versions. The text doesn't change.


.

 

[lucaspa]

Correct interpretations do not ever contradict the plain meaning. They enhance, they explain but they don't contradict.

How about Luke 2:1? Was the entire world enrolled? The correct interpretation does explain, but it also contradicts the plain meaning.

 

[1whirlwind]

Are you sure you want to make that argument? After all, according to Paul, God also gave the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, and for very similar reasons: "for the perfecting of the saints..., for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ". I don't know about the ones you know, but the pastors and teachers I've known have been flawed and not fully trustworthy, even though they are a gift from God and are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

He also warns us about many false prophets and tells us they are in our midst, in our congregations. We are to search the Scriptures to see if they speak truthfully...or not.



.

 

[lucaspa]

No. It doesn't teach evolution but neither does it teach math or reading. However, when one thing is clearly stated and man teaches something that totally refutes what is written then...it is a lie.

Then what do you do when the Bible, clearly stated, contradicts itself? That's what you have, say, in the geneologies in Luke and Matthew.

You also have that in the creation stories in Genesis. There are 3. Read literally, they contradict. For instance, Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 tells us creation took 7 days. Genesis 2:4 then tells us it took a single day. There are other contradictions between Genesis 2 and Genesis 1.

So which of them is a lie? According to you, since they refute what is written, one of them (or both) must be. Sorry, but you can't just set your criteria for judging between science and scripture. You must also use the criteria to judge scripture.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The bible was not just written for goat herders or by goat herders. Our Father wrote it for us, for all time...it does not change.


I deny evolution. I do not deny God.

Romans 1:22-23 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.


.
​

No one said it was only written from such people. Strawman.

Denying evolution=denying a facet of reality as it applies to organisms created by God.

 

[lucaspa]

That is a rather silly thing to point out but...whatever makes you happy. Now, try to comment on the statement I made, which is, "I'm not saying evolution is evil because it isn't mentioned....I say it is evil as it is in direct conflict with His Word."

You made a criteria: anything in direct conflict with His Word is evil. That statement itself is evil since it contradicts scripture. You can't make a criteria for deciding something -- like what is evil -- and then restrict it just to the case you used. That's Special Pleading.

Evolution is in direct conflict with YOUR interpretation of scripture. There is no "His Word" as referring to scripture. "Word" refers only to Jesus and evolution is not in conflict with God or Jesus. Instead, since evolution comes from God's Creation, it is God's method of creating.

When God contradicts us, then we give way, don't we? Or do you think you can contradict God and you are right?

you overlook the word AND. He gave them power over spirits AND He gave them power to heal sickness and disease.

I didn't overlook the "and". You misread it. You think the "and" connects two separate things. But the verse clearly said that sickness is caused by unclean spirits. So the "and" is saying "cast out unclean spirits and, in the process, heal sickness and disease". The "and" is connecting two ways of saying the same thing, not 2 separate things.

 

[crawfish]

Selectively quoted you? Your entire post was quoted. I bolded the parts I was replying to.....How did I misrepresent what you were saying? I wouldn't purposely do that and apologize if the bolding takes your thought out of context.

It was bolding the part that said "no guarantee that it will keep its truth" that concerned me...why you would bold that part specifically, when taken without the following words takes on a completely different meaning, is beyond me.

I agree that Scripture has power and authority. When it is written that something happened then...that something happened as written. I fully understand that there are written things that aren't completely understood until seen in a spiritual light. But, it is Scripture, as guided by the Holy Spirit, that brings greater understanding. For that reason I asked...are there any other Scriptural teachings that refute what is written about the creation of man?

The bible uses many different genres, styles and methods to deliver its message. Not all of those styles are historical. For me, deeper study has made it obvious that Genesis 1-11 are not strictly historical, and in fact are greatly poetic and symbolic.

 

[1whirlwind]

Not 6000 years old, didn't take six days to create (for starters)

This earth age is about 14,000 years...as written. This earth is billions of years old. The actual age specifically written...no, but certainly written of.


As days are a thousand years to God [2Pet.3:8], then we should, I believe, use His reckoning of time during the seven days, seven thousand years, of His creatiing this earth age. Mankind was created on the sixth day...year 6000 of this age (which is the second age). God rested on the seventh and then Adam was formed...year 8000. From that time we go from God's time to man's where a year is a year, a day is a day.

From Adam, at 8,000 BC, to the Advent of Christ was another 4,000 = 12,000 years. From His crucifixion to now brings us to 14,000 years of this earth age. That has nothing to do with the age of the earth which is billions of years old. That has nothing to do with the age before our present age...the time of the dinosaurs.

Evidence that evolution is not true (besides your opinion on what the Bible says, naturally).

Evolution is a direct contradiction of what is written. It isn't my opinion but rather what He tells us. Are you able to provide any verse that in any way explains how the Scriptures telling us that man was created should be understood as man evolving?

WW - Correct interpretations do not ever contradict the plain meaning. They enhance, they explain but they don't contradict.

Unless it's the genealogies of Christ, then this tenet is swiftly dispensed with

Are the genealogies an interpretation? They have nothing to do with evolution or with interpretations. Why is this continuously used in relation to this topic?


.

 

[lucaspa]

Then please provide where He told us about evolution.

I just did: His Creation. By looking only at scripture, you are denying thta God created.

Saying creation did isn't correct for I see male/female as they have always been.

Then you are blind.

I see dogs remaining dogs and people remaining people and, and, and.

Then again, you are not using your eyes. The fossil record clearly shows, by transitional individuals, that people have not always been as they are now. At one point they were so different as to be in a different genus. As for dogs, you are ignoring that dogs are in the process of becoming something else. The various breeds of dogs are already splitting into 4 or more new species. Not every breed of dog can mate and produce fertile offspring with every other breed of dog. Genetically, dogs are already 4 different species: 3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://wooferhouse.net/Links/DogOrigins/DogsFromWolves.html http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

11 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You are so cute when you quote scripture out of context and not knowing what you are doing. "For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
" Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.

"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. "

Of course, I worry for you how God is going to view bringing false witness against scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms what we have been saying. Notice that it does not say that 1) scripture is the only reference or 2) that it is always literally or historically correct. Instead, it says that we are to use scripture for religious purposes: " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Nor does it say that scripture was written by God. But then, Jesus already told us that in Mark 10 and Matthew 14.

I suggest you put yourself in the time and place of Paul and consider 1) what was scripture at that time, 2) who Paul was writing and preaching to, and 3) what Paul was preaching. That will tell you what Paul was saying.

Where is it written? Where is what is told us in the very beginning corrected as being evolution? Where?

Wasn't the universe itself "told us in the very beginning"? Genesis was only inspired long after the beginning. So, the earth and the rest of the universe is "what is told is in the very beginning". Creation. Creation came before Genesis. And it is in that "very beginning" that tells us evolution is correct.

I capitalize what I LIKE sO why Does iT boTHeR you SO mUch?

LOL! Nice attempt at distraction. No, you don't capitalize what you like all the time. You follow conventions on capitalization except when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar and invent this false witness to hide your guilt. Sorry, but His word is scripture. Small "s". We capitalize the small letters only when we are referring to God.

But God has two books. So what you are "pulling" is ignoring God and making a false idol out of your interpretation of scripture. That's violating the 1st Commandment.

Yes, I agree...many things are not hinted at but...He explained creation. He told us how it happened. To then say..."oh no, it happened like this instead" is against His Word! It is A LIE.

1. Why isn't God's Creation also God telling us how it happened? Why do you keep denying God? One answer that fits the facts is that you have made your interpretation of the Bible your god.
2. Why did God tell us (at least) three ways of "how it happened" in scripture? And why do those 3 ways contradict? I view that as God telling us "don't read the creation stories literally, dummy! Look at Creation to figure out how I created."

 

[1whirlwind]

How about Luke 2:1? Was the entire world enrolled? The correct interpretation does explain, but it also contradicts the plain meaning.

Luke 2:1-2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
​

In English the plain meaning is different than what is understood in Greek:

In Greek it is "oikoumene" meaning, "the world as inhabited and it is used of the habitable world, as distinct from the kosmos (the world as created). Hence, it is used in a more limited and special sense of the Roman Empire, which was then predominant." ~ E.W. Bullinger



.

 

[Jase]

So if all Scripture doesn't include the majority of the Bible, just what does it include?

Timothy was only referring to the Tanakh in that verse, more importantly the Torah. The Torah was the only known scripture of the time, and was the only scripture used in Temple to teach in righteousness according to the Law.

That verse most certainly was not referring to scripture that 1) never existed and 2) were never chosen by the Catholic Church to be put in the Bible until hundreds of years later.


That's an interesting assessment, if Scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" and was given by God, you would think it should be perfect. Are you saying or implying that God's inspiration is flawed and not trustworthy?[/quote]

profitable means useful or beneficial. It doesn't mean perfect. That verse is merely saying the Torah (All-scripture by their standards) is useful for teaching and correcting. That's why Jesus spent his childhood reading the Torah in temple. But useful does not in anyway mean perfect. A biology textbook is useful for teaching biology. It, however, is not perfect, nor is it appropriate for teaching physics or roman history.

In conclusion: That verse is referring to the only scripture in existence at the time and the only important scripture to the Jews - the Torah and it only refers to teaching in righteousness (how to be right with God). It does not mean scripture is useful for teaching science or history.