Evolution

[1whirlwind]

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.

Is it written that we are "created by God in the womb?" Please provide the verse.


.

 

[Cabal]

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 -
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.
​

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.
.

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.

Please see post #85.

Why is it written that way? Well, He wasn't of an earthly father.

So why bother to include his genealogy then?

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

Yes, I know but that isn't the point I was making. I was using His reference to the truth of the creation. That male and female were created in the beginning as...MALE AND FEMALE. They did not evolve into male and female.

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.

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.
​

.

 

[crawfish]

By your obvious smugness, I assume you believe that all Creationists agree among themselves?

 

[crawfish]

I don't understand. Please be more specific. See what as literal? What conflict?


.

I assume you are suggesting that there are not literal storehouses of hail and snow, like Job suggests there are. Why don't you believe what the bible is plainly saying here? And, if you feel you can apply some symbolic or otherwise non-literal meaning to that passage, why is it ok there and not in Genesis 1?

 

[pgp_protector]

Is it written that we are "created by God in the womb?" Please provide the verse.


.

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.

 

[crawfish]

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.
​

.

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.

 

[pgp_protector]

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?

 

[Papias]

WW arote:

He shows the difference Papias....

Where? You posted a list of things the disciples could do, which makes more sense with the understanding that evil spirits cause disease, because they are doing things related to their power over evil spirits, and a passage that supports my point.

Mt 17 supports the idea that spirits cause disease because in that case you have a different kind of disease (as you were looking for), and reading the story shows that even that different kind is caused by an evil spirit.

There are over a half million words in most Bibles, depending on which books are included in your Bible. It would have been easy to write "some diseases are caused by natural things particles that aren't spirits" or such - that is, if the Bible didn't teach that diseases are caused by evil spirits.

Germs, as we know....cause sickness and disease. Is knowledge of germs in conflict with His Word? No.

The Bible says again and again that diseases are caused by evil spirits, so yes, that is a conflict (with a literal reading). Another example is the story you cited of the boy with the seizures. It's obvious to any doctor reading that today that the poor boy had epilepsy. Would you suggest that the boy did not have epilepsy?

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.

This shows, as is unfortunately so common, that many creationists are ignorant of what a theory is. A theory is an overarching explanation in science that is in mnay case regarded as a fact in common speech. Germs, Evolution, Gravity, Atoms, etc are all both theories and facts. I think when you say "theory", you are thinking "hypothesis".

Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God's word tells us Heli was Joseph's "as was supposed," father which would be....father-in-law.

No God's word does not say that. you are again changing what the Bible says. The Bible says that Joseph was Jesus' father "as was supposed" - referring to the virgin birth. It no where says that Heli was "as was supposed" Joseph's father. You have moved the "as was supposed", changing the text.

Here, hopefully this will help. Here is the actual text, Luke 3:23 :

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the.... (end scripture)

See? Who was Matthat's son? Heli.
Who was Heli's son? Joseph.
Who was Joseph's son? Jesus (so it was thought).

Do we agree that Luke lists Joseph's father as Heli, without any further qualifications?

No need. I didn't understand the point you were making.

OK. Do you understand now? That we have three contradictory geneologies, no two of which completely agree with each other if read literally?

Papias

PS. Some of us may have missed post #100 (at the bottom of a page), but it shows why the "God made them male and female" line supports evolution and is actually evidence against creationism.

 

[1whirlwind]

WW wrote:





Doesn't that support evolution more than a literal reading? According to the evidence, male and female evolved concurrently, as Jesus says.

Only if you believe in evolution. I understand it to be Him telling us that He created them male and female in the beginning to "be fruitful and multiply"...not that they eventually evolved into a male and female over the millennia, which I see as impossible.

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.

No. Mankind was created male and female....Adam was formed male. Eve came later, and then the problems arose.

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

No, for that isn't what happened nor is it written. Mankind was created male and female. Adam was formed male. There has been nothing that I have seen in this thread to alter the meaning of male and female being created at the beginning...nothing leading one to see it as evolution.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

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?

I'm not sure Cabal. I've heard it is because it connects Christ to the kingly line of Solomon as well as the priestly line...I just don't know. (that never made a lot of sense to me as Nathan was of David and that was the kingly line.)


.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

There is no need to be abrupt. We're all here to reason together. But, thank you for providing the verse. It is a bit different in the KJV....

Psalm 139:13-15 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.


​

I don't understand that as being "created in the womb." I do understand it as referring to our souls, which are "formed in the womb." [Jeremiah 1:5]


.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.


.

 

[crawfish]

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.


.

As also mentioned in this thread, that is a blatant misuse of the scripture.

 

[Jase]

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.

 

[Cabal]

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.

Not so much cherry-picking what they like, but cherry-picking what is taken literally and what is interpreted.

I'm not criticising that in itself - everyone does it when they read the Bible, just some actually acknowledge they do it. It's just a bit galling when some creationists whale on TEs for their stance on origins because they don't take Genesis 1 literally and yet they have their own unique, hard-to-justify conclusions of other parts of the Bible.

 

[Jase]

Evolution is a teaching in direct conflict with His Word. In others words, it is a lie.


.

Evolution is a 100% fact, sorry. And the Bible is not the Word - Jesus Christ is. Stop worshipping a book!

 

[Jase]

Evolution is a much bigger (wider) theory. In comparison, gravity, germs, atoms have many many more evidences.

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.

 

[Jase]

No. Mankind was created male and female....Adam was formed male. Eve came later, and then the problems arose.



.

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.

 

[Jase]

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?

I mentioned this a few pages back, and I believe WW had claimed since Jesus is physical, so is God.