Evolution

[Achilles6129]

So when did God cancel His PETA membership? Put that way, I think you should see the problem immediately: the God of the Bible does not change. He is "the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). If death in the animal kingdom was not something good before the Fall, what makes it good after the Fall?

It's not good at all, and it was never the way that God intended it to be. Haven't you heard Jesus Christ say "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof"?

You clearly believe in the god of evolution. This "god" is a monstrous deity who allows his creation to undergo millions of years of pain, suffering, death, (and for the human race) hundreds of thousands of years of rape, incest, war, suffering, plagues, and what not, all the while pronouncing said events "VERY GOOD." You don't see a problem with that? You'd be better off worshipping Ronald McDonald. The god of evolution whom you apparently worship is a demented being.

And if you complain about the tone of my response, don't bother. One disrespectful response deserves another.

Do you see the part where God warns Adam that the lions don't eat tofu any more, and the alligators aren't going to take kindly to petting? I don't, because it's not there. And yet you'd think that God would have told Adam about a change as important and drastic as half the animal kingdom suddenly thinking of him as a walking warm hunk of meat.

Oh really? How about death happening to Adam after the Fall?

"19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3:19

There you have it. Adam dies post-fall, and God warned him of it.

And what about the Romans passages? Well, Romans 5:12 says that death spread to all men because all sinned, not to all creation; and Romans 8:21 says nothing specifically either about the state of creation before the Fall or about whether animals ate animals. So at the end of the day the only Scriptural passages concerning carnivory are passages where God uses them to glorify Himself.

Wrong again. Here ya go:

"29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." Gen. 1:29-30

Oh, none of us TEs doubt that, in case you were wondering. Of course you will find that most of these credentialed scientists are actually engineers preaching about biology, and chemists holding forth on nuclear dating, and other kinds of queerly mis-credentialed miscreants.

This is not true - however, there is nothing wrong with someone from a different field weighing in on a matter their specific degree isn't in. Evolutionists do it all the time. You don't have to have a degree in that specific field to be factual and correct.

But it's not that we doubt that there are creationists who (think they) know what they're talking about. We just think they're wrong.

Well, the Bible says that you're wrong. And everything in the Bible - from the creation account to the GLOBAL FLOOD of Genesis - says that evolution is wrong. And, of course, that means that evolutionists have misinterpreted the fossil strata as representing millions of years when, in fact, much of it is represented by the Flood.

So you can forget about the links - because we don't often use them ourselves - and step up to the plate and tell us what you think is accurate or not as a description of our God's wonderful creation.

Thanks for admitting you're not interested in any factual data. Now I know to stop wasting my time putting resources out there. Maybe you can decide who you want to follow - Jesus Christ or evolution.

 

[matthewgar]

I wonder if creationists neglect to notice WHY Adam and eve would die after they left The garden of Eden even as a 6 year old I knew the answer. Remember the tree of good and evil isn't the only tree in the Garden Of Eden. There was another tree called, the tree of life, it can be assumed that this is what made them immortal, that as long as they fed from it they would have eternal life, when they were removed they no longer had immortality.

BUt there was still the residual effect wich is why for a few generations beyond there people still lived long lives, but over time it became less. No where in Genesis does it say there was no death, just that there was a tree of life, that they were removed from eden to prevent them from eating it.

Genesis 3:22-23

And the lord said, "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore the lord god sent him from the Garden of Eden, to till ground whence he taken.

Should be noted that the Garden of Eden wasn't the only part of the world at the point in time, and was a special place created soley for man and woman to live in paradise, wich could have been created for the first man and woman, or for a special man and woman, but where in the story of Genesis does it say the entire world was without death or anything outside of the Garden of Eden?

Just some random musing and thoughts.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Death is natural.

 

[shernren]

Thanks for admitting you're not interested in any factual data. Now I know to stop wasting my time putting resources out there. Maybe you can decide who you want to follow - Jesus Christ or evolution.

Wow. I shouldn't have to dodge accusations of being an infidel just to ask you a very simple question:

When, in your view, did God change from forbidding meat-eating in the natural kingdom to actively sustaining it?
​

You accuse me of supporting evolution when, in post #540, I only used Bible verses to support my point.

God doesn't change? Reference from James.
God actively provides carnivorous sustenance in creation? Reference from Job, supplied by Assyrian, as well as many others in the Psalms.
God never tells Adam that animals will become carnivorous? Reference from Genesis.
Conclusion: there can be carnivorous activity before the Fall? Completely Biblical.

It's an argument that a YEC, an OEC, or a TE can agree to as long as they agree to the Bible. Now, I could stoop to your level of churlishness and ask you to choose between the Bible and YECism, but I won't. (Oh, the wonders of apophasis!)

It's not good at all, and it was never the way that God intended it to be. Haven't you heard Jesus Christ say "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof"?

You clearly believe in the god of evolution. This "god" is a monstrous deity who allows his creation to undergo millions of years of pain, suffering, death, (and for the human race) hundreds of thousands of years of rape, incest, war, suffering, plagues, and what not, all the while pronouncing said events "VERY GOOD." You don't see a problem with that? You'd be better off worshipping Ronald McDonald. The god of evolution whom you apparently worship is a demented being.

("Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" has to do with worrying about tomorrow - I fail to see its relevance to this discussion.)

You keep telling me that God thinks animal death is not "good". Where in the Bible did you get that? Have you not read:

As for you, go back home. When you set foot in your city, the boy will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only one belonging to Jeroboam who will be buried, because he is the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom the LORD, the God of Israel, has found anything good. (1 Kings 14:12-13)
​

I don't get why I should worship Ronald McDonald. I know what he wants: for me to buy his burgers and fries. And you seem to know directly and clearly what God wants, which somehow precludes any form of animal death (including, presumably, the chicken or fish or beef you'll be having for dinner).

But I worship the God of the Bible, a God whose ways are higher than our ways and whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts. I cannot obtain knowledge of His will by my own moral qualms, because I cannot trust my own fallen human judgment; instead, I have to turn to the Bible.

And when I read the Bible, I do not see a fuzzy huggly God who would faint at the sight of a bear snatching salmon out of the air. I see a God who describes Himself as being majestic enough to feed the ravens with meat and the eagles with prey. I see a God who glorifies Himself, in Job 39, in the wild donkey that throws off human ropes and the wild ox that cannot be yoked, in the mountain goat whose young abandon their parents and in the ostrich who does not tend her own eggs. ("God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense" - and yet God still called her very good!) Furthermore I see a God who does not shrink from describing His own, eternal Son, unchanging in glory, not just as a Lamb but as a roaring Lion of Judah, violent against His enemies and bloody in victory.

You may consider that demented, but I'm just telling you what I read from the Bible. Where in the Bible is your picture of God?

And if you complain about the tone of my response, don't bother. One disrespectful response deserves another.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. (Romans 12:17)
​

Oh really? How about death happening to Adam after the Fall?

"19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3:19

There you have it. Adam dies post-fall, and God warned him of it.

But God doesn't warn him against predation post-fall. Indeed, does the Bible ever say that those whom God loves have to fear physical death? We are more than conquerors, and yet we still die; therefore physical death in itself is nothing to be feared except for the enemies of God, for whom death seals a sentence they accrued in life.

Wrong again. Here ya go:

"29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." Gen. 1:29-30

So tell me something. Where in the Bible are humans first permitted to eat meat?

Well, the Bible says that you're wrong. And everything in the Bible - from the creation account to the GLOBAL FLOOD of Genesis - says that evolution is wrong. And, of course, that means that evolutionists have misinterpreted the fossil strata as representing millions of years when, in fact, much of it is represented by the Flood.

We can talk about the Flood another time, but you should know that many respectable conservative evangelical scholars consider the language of Genesis 1-3 to be something that cannot be taken literally. For example, John Stott in his commentary on Romans accepts the existence of pre-Adamic hominids: see the quote here.

So the Bible is not as clear-cut as you think it to be.

 

[Assyrian]

If rabbits dying would have been bad before the fall, it is just as bad after, and God is doing what intrinsically wrong. Humans sinning should not change God's moral standards.

Negative. God never intended that rabbits die, nor that any human being ever die.That was not his intention.

Sorry Achilles, that is argument by assertion, simply stating your opinion. You don't know that God never intended rabbits to die. All we know about God's intention when he created the world is what he tells us in the bible, and what he reveal there is that his intention from before the foundation of the world was for Christ to die for us, the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Whether you think death came in at the fall or was always part of God's creation, it is clear death and mortality was a part of God's plan from the very beginning.

Of course your argument by assertion does not address my point. If the death of animals is wrong and contradicts creation being declared good, then it is wrong now and God is committing sin by providing prey for ravens, or commanding the death of countless doves, sheep, goats and cattle in the temple sacrificial system.

On the contrary, the god of evolution's intention is to have his creation die, and he instigates millions upon millions of years of death (not to mention hundreds of thousands of years of rape/incest) just to get to Genesis chapter 3.

If you want to talk about the 'god of evolution' you can't just make it up yourself. Evolutionary biology does not tell us about God, nor do I think a creationist who clearly hates 'the god of evolution' is in much of a position to tell us about his nature and intention. You might as well go to a militant atheist and ask him what the God of the bible is like. If you want to know what the God of evolution is like you have to look in the bible and ask if God did use evolution what does the bible tell us about his reasons. I don't think the millions of years is relevant, firstly because however long evolution took, each animal only lived out it's own lifetime, and secondly, the bible teaches us that God's timing is not to be judged on our time scale. Why did God wait thousands of years to send the messiah? Why did so many generations die in sin and darkness without any knowledge of the saviour, that is a bigger question than why did animals die for millions of years. The bible simply tells us God sent his son in the fullness of time. God waited for the time to be right.

In fact the bible tells us God's intentions for creation and the reason for death and decay.
Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Notice Paul does not say creation was subject to decay after the fall? It simply tells us it was God who did this, and why he did it. In other words this is true whether nature was subject to futility and decay at the fall or throughout its evolutionary history. And the reason God did this, was not because he was a sadist as you claim, but because he wants all of creation nature to share in the inheritance of the children of God. In other words God's purpose was for nature to share in immortality, but when the time was right.

He (the god of evolution)is not a very competent designer at all. God never intended any death whatsoever - that's how it worked out because of the fall.

Again that is just assertion.

However, God will save anyone who obeys the real gospel from death for all eternity - see Rev. 21. And that is God's will.

Very true.

This is post-fall, Assyrian. God's original intent was never that there ever be any floods to destroy anyone. There was never any death in the world as God created it - and that was what he wanted. But that changed because of the fall.

You complain about God sending floods, it doesn't matter if it was before or after the flood, it is still God sending the flood and killing vast numbers of men, women and innocent children and animals. Simply asserting death was never God's intention, does not change the fact it is God doing all the killing.

You seem to be working on a double standards here Achilles. You are happy to accept God has good reasons for putting people and animals to death now, but your 'god of evolution' must have been a vicious psychopath.

In short, the human race must obey the real gospel of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Disobedience will eventually mean death (which is defined as eternal separation from God - see Rev. 20:11-15, the "second death"). By their disobedience, they bring upon themselves the wrath of God (see Rom. 1).

Animals are not being disobedient. It is animals you complain about dying long before mankind.

 

[1whirlwind]

[/indent]By His mouth, you mean God's? Because I thought the verse you quoted was an interesting example of how easy it is to misunderstand scripture. You see the person speaking here is Solomon (Prov 1:1) giving advice to his son (Prov 1:8 and 4:10). When he said "the word's of my mouth" he meant his own mouth, not God's, hence the capitalisation of the 'My' is wrong. It is not a big thing, and after all it is still inspired scripture, but it shows we need to understand what scripture is saying it and how it is saying it.

You see this as a personal letter? We read this differently Assyrian for to my eyes this is our Father speaking to us through Solomon.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be My son.


​

Also very interesting how Solomon's lesson in seeking wisdom flows into this beautiful metaphor of wisdom as a woman.

Prov 4:5 Get wisdom; get insight; do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.
6 Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you.
7 The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.
8 Prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honour you if you embrace her.
9 She will place on your head a graceful garland; she will bestow on you a beautiful crown."

Biblical wisdom is much more comfortable with metaphor than many Christians are today.

True.

So, if you have searched the scripture, where does it say evolution isn't true? You see, I have searched the scripture too, and it doesn't say evolution is a lie. It does speak in metaphors and it does show us how people often misunderstand these metaphors, it regularly uses the the metaphor of people being made of dust, of God being the potter and we are the clay, but I haven't found anywhere we are told to take this literally. Perhaps you have misunderstood?

We are all prone to error and misunderstanding in our search and I am certainly among "all."

You need not take literally, Biblical....dust, stones, clay, fire, sword, mountains, clouds, etc. But you certainly should understand what they represent as being literal. You have heard the expression, "you are what you eat." We are. We consume things of the earth or creatures that consume things of the earth. We are of the earth and we return to earth..

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
​

Do the scriptures write out....evolution is a lie....literally, in a verse? No. Nowhere is it written as...Assyrian 1:15 Evolution is how I formed the world and it's occupants. But what is written is the very opposite of that...the very opposite! I created, in My image, in My likeness, on the sixth day, male and female, after their kind. It is written...evolution is not. He then said....

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
​

For evolution to be true then this would be yet another lie. Unless of course, man evolved to a certain point and then....the process stopped? Or, perhaps being "finished," doesn't really mean....finished.

I have asked, from the beginning of this thread, for any mention, any verse, any hint of the truth of Evolution...not that it need be mentioned by name but anything suggesting it as the method of formation. So far.....all is quiet on the western front. Instead I've been told I need discard what is written and accept what man teaches. Among the reasoning is.....

That evolution doesn't really mean apes evolved into man but ancient apes did.

That because gravity, germs, meteorology and atoms aren't mentioned or are somehow prove creation didn't happen somehow that means evolution is true.

That being made in His image, after His likeness...doesn't mean we look like Him...from the beginning.

That the misunderstanding many have of the geneologies of Christ somehow prove evolution or that what is written isn't true.

That the word "and" as used in evil spirits AND illness doesn't mean anything and that the two, evil spirits and illness, mean the very same thing and mean, in every verse in the Bible....that they always mean the very same thing.

That the circle of the earth doesn't mean the earth is round so...evolution is true.

And on and on and on.......

​

And yet, still NO verse hinting that Genesis was a lie, was misunderstood, was somehow about evolution instead of creation....NONE. So, yes Assyrian I could certainly be mistaken but that mistake needs to be pointed out in Scripture. I have admitted I was wrong in the past and I will certainly admit it in the future for He reveals as we grow in understanding and accepting that correction shows our maturity but...am I wrong in this case?


.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

You clearly believe in the god of evolution. This "god" is a monstrous deity who allows his creation to undergo millions of years of pain, suffering, death, (and for the human race) hundreds of thousands of years of rape, incest, war, suffering, plagues, and what not, all the while pronouncing said events "VERY GOOD." You don't see a problem with that? You'd be better off worshipping Ronald McDonald. The god of evolution whom you apparently worship is a demented being.

Excellent point, and the implications are truly inescapable. I just need point out, Achilles, that this is a matter of disagreeing on God's creation methods, it is not that they are worshiping a false God, persay. As much as the implications of evolution in scripture could be untenable, faith in Christ is still faith in Christ. I think it's important to draw the line between what compromises faith and what doesn't.

Although one must wonder, as you say --> the implications of inferring evolution is that God really is some sort of "demented" being who seemingly didn't truly act in accordance with His word whatsoever.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

So the Bible is not as clear-cut as you think it to be.

But it is clear-cut enough. Since when does a legitimate argument revolve around blurring the lines?

 

[matthewgar]

Excellent point, and the implications are truly inescapable. I just need point out, Achilles, that this is a matter of disagreeing on God's creation methods, it is not that they are worshiping a false God, persay. As much as the implications of evolution in scripture could be untenable, faith in Christ is still faith in Christ. I think it's important to draw the line between what compromises faith and what doesn't.

Although one must wonder, as you say --> the implications of inferring evolution is that God really is some sort of "demented" being who seemingly didn't truly act in accordance with His word whatsoever.

I don't believe that evolution makes god seem this way, but should be pointed out, if evolution is true, it's true, regardless of wether you like it or not, how much you like or dislike something has no bases in it's truthfulness.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Let's look at Genesis 2:7 again.

7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So let me throw out some thoughts here, not necessarily connected to what I believe.

1. the Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the ground. In other words, He took inorganic material, gave it the breath of life, and ended up with a living man.

2. the Bible doesn't spell out how long this took, and all the intermediate steps, if any, along the way. All we are told is that at the beginning, there was dust, and at the end there was a living man.

3. a so-called creationist would argue that this was an instant process: in a flash, dust became a living man. But this is only an interpretation- we really don't know how long this took, or how many intermediate steps, if any, there were.

4. a theistic evolutionist would argue that the lack of detail in the Genesis account leaves open the possibility that this process of producing a man from inorganic dust could have taken much longer, and involved many intermediate steps. However, scientifically, it is not possible to theorize, let alone prove, whether this is true or not. All a theistic evolutionist can do is look at modern breeding that produces genetically-distinct new individuals, the fossil record, the similarity of DNA in all living matter, and other evidence, and hypothesize that the dust could have been given the breathe of life, and then through many intermediate steps, evolved to become a man.

Now this post is not intended to become a debate about the details and merits of what I am saying above, so don't bother rebutting any of these ideas because that is not the point of this post; instead, it is the following:


1. Both the creationist and the theistic evolutionist acknowledge that God created the Universe and everything in it.

2. If they are Christians, then both the creationist and the theistic evolutionist believe in the salvation that can come only through Jesus Christ.

So if the Bible does not spell out the details of creation (because it was never intended to be a science textbook) then why is there so much acrimonious debate amongst Christians about this matter? One of the key elements of our faith is love- and if you don't understand how that should be displayed, just simply look at the life of Jesus and use His example as a guide.

The trouble with any debate here on Christians Forums is that the communication is not complete- we don't see the presenters face to face, and pick up on their facial expressions, tone, and other attributes that are needed to fully convey a thought.

So I would suggest the following: before you post anything here, ask yourself if you would say what you have to say if you were face to face with the other people here, sitting in a small Church group, and all the people present were your best friends.

In summary, in our debate here, we need to always heed the advice given in 1 Corinthians 13:13 where the Bible talks about desirable attributes that we should have as Christians:

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I don't believe that evolution makes god seem this way, but should be pointed out, if evolution is true, it's true, regardless of wether you like it or not, how much you like or dislike something has no bases in it's truthfulness.

The ultimate truthfullness of the matter, however, is if it aligns with scripture - and both human evolution and universal common descent do not, which is the central point.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

You could even take this idea of love one step farther: assume that some in your small group are not yet Christians- but are searching for meaning in life.

If this is the case, then isn't it worth saying things that uplift our faith, and convince a faith-seeker that Christianity has something really worthwhile to offer?

 

[matthewgar]

The ultimate truthfullness of the matter, however, is if it aligns with scripture - and both human evolution and universal common descent do not, which is the central point.

Sorry I base what is in the real world, thats just your interpetation, since evolution is a fact there are three main choices.

Be like you guys deny reality sit there and make up excuses, or adhoc things to try to explain why evolution is false, not convincing anyone that knows the first thing about evolution.

Be like those of me that accept evolution as undeniable facts, as I posted in the videos above a few pages back there just is too much evidence that contradicts the literal interpetation of the bible. I accept Jesus and god, so my choice is to see evolution as how they made it.

Or third, become a Atheist that use the same arguments you use, but also accept evolution so they deny Jesus and god, due to the conflict you and them create. Now lets think for a second here, if Evolution is how god created life on this planet who is harming Christianity, who do you think god will call good servant, those that spread lies and deny the existance of evolution, or those that don't stick their heads in the sand because it conflicts with their precious little ideals of god?

 

[Polycarp1]

I absolutely love post #552 (reps incoming!) and agree wholeheartedly with it. I'd add one final point: some people tend to contrast matter and spirit, and find the former evil. This has no place in Christianity -- when Scripture condemns 'the flesh', its reference is concuiscence, the tendency to sin that comes with being a (non-regenerate) human being. And we have Scripture itself to thank that we are told in no uncertain terms that God not only called His whole creation good (before the Fall(, but later Himself entered into it, into human flesh as one of us. The Incarnation is an important point in origins theology, often overlooked.

Sorry I base what is in the real world, thats just your interpetation, since evolution is a fact there are three main choices.

Be like you guys deny reality sit there and make up excuses, or adhoc things to try to explain why evolution is false, not convincing anyone that knows the first thing about evolution.

Be like those of me that accept evolution as undeniable facts, as I posted in the videos above a few pages back there just is too much evidence that contradicts the literal interpetation of the bible. I accept Jesus and god, so my choice is to see evolution as how they made it.

Or third, become a Atheist that use the same arguments you use, but also accept evolution so they deny Jesus and god, due to the conflict you and them create. Now lets think for a second here, if Evolution is how god created life on this planet who is harming Christianity, who do you think god will call good servant, those that spread lies and deny the existance of evolution, or those that don't stick their heads in the sand because it conflicts with their precious little ideals of god?

I completely agree. Note that what is being rejected in choice #2 is the literal interpretation of Scripture -- and we know from the Bible itself that God often teaches through story. To reject someone's literal understanding of a passage of Scripture is NOT to reject the Scripture itself, just someone else's gloss on it as intended to be read literally.

 

[Papias]

Polycarp wrote:

I completely agree. Note that what is being rejected in choice #2 is the literal interpretation of Scripture -- and we know from the Bible itself that God often teaches through story. To reject someone's literal understanding of a passage of Scripture is NOT to reject the Scripture itself, just someone else's gloss on it as intended to be read literally.

Yes, and even further evidence comes to us by recognizing that when this God was on earth, among us as Jesus, he taught mainly (nearly exclusively) by parable, metaphor and story. What Christian than could possible be surprised that this same God starts out his revelation to us with a metaphorical story?

To fail to see that reminds me of Marcion, who claimed there were two separate Gods, the God of the Jews (who was harsh) and Jesus (who was not harsh).

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Sorry I base what is in the real world, thats just your interpetation, since evolution is a fact there are three main choices.

Be like you guys deny reality sit there and make up excuses, or adhoc things to try to explain why evolution is false, not convincing anyone that knows the first thing about evolution.

Be like those of me that accept evolution as undeniable facts, as I posted in the videos above a few pages back there just is too much evidence that contradicts the literal interpetation of the bible. I accept Jesus and god, so my choice is to see evolution as how they made it.

Or third, become a Atheist that use the same arguments you use, but also accept evolution so they deny Jesus and god, due to the conflict you and them create. Now lets think for a second here, if Evolution is how god created life on this planet who is harming Christianity, who do you think god will call good servant, those that spread lies and deny the existance of evolution, or those that don't stick their heads in the sand because it conflicts with their precious little ideals of god?

Oh I do not deny reality, adaptive responses exist in nature, speciation happens. My point is how UCD stands up to the scriptures and if human evoltion as science "claims" it to be is something justifiable by what is found in the Bible. You do not seem to understand my position is not by denying evolution altogether, but scrutinizing the elements of evolution that are relevant to the text.

It is not my opinion of "interpretation", it is simply a matter of choosing to believe the "reality" that scripture presents us. It is not a matter of reading it literally or not --> the issue is simply that "literalism"
becomes the scapegoat in denying altogether what genesis represents. Metaphors/symbols/allegories are not literal but still convey the very truths they are connected with. What is being done isn't proper Biblical interpretation, it is creating a loophole.

Read Genesis 2:7
It is clear that man only became a living being after God had finished forming him.

There is no purpose for claiming this is "symbolic" aside from denying altogether any of this happened in this manner, the creation of man can thus became anything you want it to be.

This has nothing to do with what I am predisposed to believe about evolutionary theory or creationism

 

[Assyrian]

You see this as a personal letter? We read this differently Assyrian for to my eyes this is our Father speaking to us through Solomon.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be My son.
​

Of course the word of God is living and active and God does speak to us through his inspired word. But we also need to understand scripture and what it is actually says, to separate the literal meaning of the text from metaphor, from whatever we feel God is speaking to us through his word. Otherwise it is too easy to mistake our own interpretation for what scripture is really saying.

True.

We are all prone to error and misunderstanding in our search and I am certainly among "all."

You need not take literally, Biblical....dust, stones, clay, fire, sword, mountains, clouds, etc. But you certainly should understand what they represent as being literal. You have heard the expression, "you are what you eat." We are. We consume things of the earth or creatures that consume things of the earth. We are of the earth and we return to earth..

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
​

I agree, there is much in the imagery that we are of the stuff of the earth and return to it when we die, also that it is God himself who forms us from the dust, and moulds us according to his will like a potter. But remember, this is true for us even though we have a normal biological origin, growing in our mother's womb rather than being moulded on a potter's wheel and it would be just as true if Adam was a literal human being created by God through evolution, or was even a picture of God creating the human race.

Do the scriptures write out....evolution is a lie....literally, in a verse? No. Nowhere is it written as...Assyrian 1:15 Evolution is how I formed the world and it's occupants.

You have the answer to that in Reasoning # 2 below.

That because gravity, germs, meteorology and atoms aren't mentioned or are somehow prove creation didn't happen somehow that means evolution is true.
​

Though it's not that these show creation didn't happen or that evolution is true, they simply answer the creationist claim evolution isn't true because it isn't mentioned in the bible.

But what is written is the very opposite of that...the very opposite! I created, in My image, in My likeness,

Where does biology say man isn't created in the image of God? Science know nothing about God and cannot tell us evolution was how God made the human race or that that when God used evolution to make mankind he made man in his image and likeness, neither can science tell us God didn't. All science can tell us is that all life on earth, including the human race, evolved. We know by faith. through God's word. that God created us and made us in his image. There is no conflict between the two. Science simply tells us how it happened.

on the sixth day, male and female, after their kind. It is written...evolution is not. He then said....

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
​

For evolution to be true then this would be yet another lie. Unless of course, man evolved to a certain point and then....the process stopped? Or, perhaps being "finished," doesn't really mean....finished.

Or the seventh day isn't finished yet. Do you think God has completed his work on the human race? Not to say we are evolving into perfection, the next big change is the resurrection, what I am saying is we haven't come into the fullness of the seventh day yet. Read Hebrews 3&4.

I have asked, from the beginning of this thread, for any mention, any verse, any hint of the truth of Evolution...not that it need be mentioned by name but anything suggesting it as the method of formation. So far.....all is quiet on the western front.

How about Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..." In other word God commanded natural processes on earth to produce all the different types of animals.
How about the bible telling us we are animals too. Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Same phrase in Hebrew. Or you have Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. Of course this does not explain the biological process of mutation and selection, but it show there is nothing unscriptural in the realisation life arose through natural processes and that we are animals too. It also show us there in no contradiction between life emerging through natural processes and God creating it. The next verse in Genesis 1 after God commanding the earth to produce all the different forms of life says Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds...

Instead I've been told I need discard what is written and accept what man teaches.

It is what we had to do when we found out our literal interpretation of the geocentric passages was wrong. The difference was, the church hadn't had a single hint from scripture that they should not be taken completely literally, no one before Copernicus came along had read say Joshua's miracle and said "hold on, I don't think this is literally saying the sun stopped moving". But science showed them their interpretation was wrong, eventually, they when back to scripture and found better ways to understand those passages, not because scripture told them their old interpretation was wrong, but because science did. On the other hand you did have scripture scholars down through the ages reading Genesis and saying, "look at what the text says, this is not speaking literally." Turns out they were right.

Among the reasoning is.....

That evolution doesn't really mean apes evolved into man but ancient apes did.

That because gravity, germs, meteorology and atoms aren't mentioned or are somehow prove creation didn't happen somehow that means evolution is true.

That being made in His image, after His likeness...doesn't mean we look like Him...from the beginning.

That the misunderstanding many have of the geneologies of Christ somehow prove evolution or that what is written isn't true.

That the word "and" as used in evil spirits AND illness doesn't mean anything and that the two, evil spirits and illness, mean the very same thing and mean, in every verse in the Bible....that they always mean the very same thing.

That the circle of the earth doesn't mean the earth is round so...evolution is true.

And on and on and on.......
​

You need to look at the context of the arguments, some are showing the flaws in a creationist argument against evolution, not showing creationism is wrong or evolution is right but that a creationist argument against evolution does not hold water. Others show the dangers of trying to base our scientific understanding of the universe on scripture rather than science.

And yet, still NO verse hinting that Genesis was a lie, was misunderstood, was somehow about evolution instead of creation....NONE.

I am sure I have pointed out that Genesis 1 and 2 give two completely different sequences of creation. That is certainly a hint that maybe it is speaking literally. So are all the references to Gen 1-3 throughout scripture that interpret it figuratively. On the other hand, is there a single passage that tells you to interpret it literally?

So, yes Assyrian I could certainly be mistaken but that mistake needs to be pointed out in Scripture.

No one pointed out from scripture that the geocentric interpretations were mistaken. They found out from science, and had to go back to scripture to figure out where they went wrong.

I have admitted I was wrong in the past and I will certainly admit it in the future for He reveals as we grow in understanding and accepting that correction shows our maturity but...am I wrong in this case?
.

Our scientific understanding of the age of the earth and evolution is very well established, so yes I am afraid you are wrong. But you are a follower of Jesus Christ and he loves teaching his disciples about metaphor and parables.

 

[matthewgar]

Oh I do not deny reality, adaptive responses exist in nature, speciation happens. My point is how UCD stands up to the scriptures and if human evoltion as science "claims" it to be is something justifiable by what is found in the Bible. You do not seem to understand my position is not by denying evolution altogether, but scrutinizing the elements of evolution that are relevant to the text.

It is not my opinion of "interpretation", it is simply a matter of choosing to believe the "reality" that scripture presents us. It is not a matter of reading it literally or not --> the issue is simply that "literalism"
becomes the scapegoat in denying altogether what genesis represents. Metaphors/symbols/allegories are not literal but still convey the very truths they are connected with. What is being done isn't proper Biblical interpretation, it is creating a loophole.

Read Genesis 2:7
It is clear that man only became a living being after God had finished forming him.

There is no purpose for claiming this is "symbolic" aside from denying altogether any of this happened in this manner, the creation of man can thus became anything you want it to be.

This has nothing to do with what I am predisposed to believe about evolutionary theory or creationism

Except it doesn't matter what you think scripture says or doesn't say, UCD is true, we have the fossils, we have the genetics, we win. So again the only options are those three, now if you want to argue for atheism wich is really what your doing, go ahead, but I don't really think thats going to get what you want.

 

[1whirlwind]

Of course the word of God is living and active and God does speak to us through his inspired word. But we also need to understand scripture and what it is actually says, to separate the literal meaning of the text from metaphor, from whatever we feel God is speaking to us through his word. Otherwise it is too easy to mistake our own interpretation for what scripture is really saying.

The struggle to understand is why we are here. Happy Hearts Club made a very profound statement and something well worth repeating....

"The ultimate truthfullness of the matter, however, is if it aligns with scripture - and both human evolution and universal common descent do not, which is the central point."



​

I agree, there is much in the imagery that we are of the stuff of the earth and return to it when we die, also that it is God himself who forms us from the dust, and moulds us according to his will like a potter. But remember, this is true for us even though we have a normal biological origin, growing in our mother's womb rather than being moulded on a potter's wheel and it would be just as true if Adam was a literal human being created by God through evolution, or was even a picture of God creating the human race.

Adam was literal and He was formed by God. Mankind was created by God. He gave those He created and formed the ability to produce when He created them and in that ability He placed certain restrictions. We, as do animals....have our own kind. Humans produce humans...always have and always will....from the beginning. We didn't evolve into that process but we began that way. Evolution is NOT a picture of the creation of man. It is a lie. It does not in any way, shape or form...align with scripture.

You have the answer to that in Reasoning # 2 below.

That because gravity, germs, meteorology and atoms aren't mentioned or are somehow prove creation didn't happen somehow that means evolution is true.
​

Though it's not that these show creation didn't happen or that evolution is true, they simply answer the creationist claim evolution isn't true because it isn't mentioned in the bible.

If that is the creationist claim...why do you use it? It was an evolutionist that mentioned it previously. I see the argument as without merit in this discussion.

Where does biology say man isn't created in the image of God? Science know nothing about God and cannot tell us evolution was how God made the human race or that that when God used evolution to make mankind he made man in his image and likeness, neither can science tell us God didn't. All science can tell us is that all life on earth, including the human race, evolved. We know by faith. through God's word. that God created us and made us in his image. There is no conflict between the two. Science simply tells us how it happened.

From the beginning we were created in His image and His likeness. Again, what you say is not aligning with Scripture. For evolution to be true there would be evidence everywhere of folks morphing from creatures...there are none. We have skeletal remains of many things from ancient times but...not man and not man in evolving stages. Why? There are none.

Or the seventh day isn't finished yet. Do you think God has completed his work on the human race? Not to say we are evolving into perfection, the next big change is the resurrection, what I am saying is we haven't come into the fullness of the seventh day yet. Read Hebrews 3&4.

Again...you aren't aligning with Scripture. He tells us, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." We are among the host of them. We were finished when this earth age began we just awaited flesh birth.


He then tells us....And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.

The seventh day is finished...not ongoing. We aren't living in a sanctified age. It speaks of the time of the millennium but that hasn't yet begun.

I read Hebrews 3 & 4 and saw nothing leading me in another direction from the above.

How about Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..." In other word God commanded natural processes on earth to produce all the different types of animals.
How about the bible telling us we are animals too. Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Same phrase in Hebrew. Or you have Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. Of course this does not explain the biological process of mutation and selection, but it show there is nothing unscriptural in the realisation life arose through natural processes and that we are animals too. It also show us there in no contradiction between life emerging through natural processes and God creating it. The next verse in Genesis 1 after God commanding the earth to produce all the different forms of life says Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds...

Thank you Assyrian. You are the only one to offer Scriptural documention to bolster evolution. My reply is that the living creatures the "earth brought forward" were "after their kind" and was not God commanding natural processes to produce all different types. They were created and from that creation were to produce after their kind.

And yes, we too are animals, some are beasts, all are living creatures but....we were created after the literal animals (lions, tigers and bears, oh my). There is a difference in beasts of the field and beasts of the earth.

It is what we had to do when we found out our literal interpretation of the geocentric passages was wrong. The difference was, the church hadn't had a single hint from scripture that they should not be taken completely literally, no one before Copernicus came along had read say Joshua's miracle and said "hold on, I don't think this is literally saying the sun stopped moving". But science showed them their interpretation was wrong, eventually, they when back to scripture and found better ways to understand those passages, not because scripture told them their old interpretation was wrong, but because science did. On the other hand you did have scripture scholars down through the ages reading Genesis and saying, "look at what the text says, this is not speaking literally." Turns out they were right.

It's funny you should mention that. I began working on a thread this morning that has to do with the sun standing still...and what I believe it means.

In your example given above....did Copernicus tell us that Scripture was wrong or that man interpreted it incorrectly? My point being, Scripture is truth...man messes up. For that reason I have asked for Scriptural documention of evolution. If creationist aren't correctly understanding the creation then evolution should be written.

You need to look at the context of the arguments, some are showing the flaws in a creationist argument against evolution, not showing creationism is wrong or evolution is right but that a creationist argument against evolution does not hold water. Others show the dangers of trying to base our scientific understanding of the universe on scripture rather than science.

To me, the arguments are moot and have no bearing on evolution. I didn't bring them up. If memory serves it was an evolutionist that brought them forward as arguments for evolution. But, I have a terrible memory.

I am sure I have pointed out that Genesis 1 and 2 give two completely different sequences of creation. That is certainly a hint that maybe it is speaking literally. So are all the references to Gen 1-3 throughout scripture that interpret it figuratively. On the other hand, is there a single passage that tells you to interpret it literally?

It is literal and in that truth are symbolic uses that point to the literal. The two chapters aren't different sequences of the one event but rather are two different events. The second chapter begins after the seventh day and the events contained therein happen after the seventh day. It isn't repeating the first.

As for a passage telling us to interpret it literally...parables, metaphors, types, shadows, all point to truths. Whether you understand Genesis as being figurative or literal has no bearing on it being the truth. He will not tell us, as is written, that things began as they did and it be lie. There are too many Scriptural hurdles to jump in order to agree with evolution.

No one pointed out from scripture that the geocentric interpretations were mistaken. They found out from science, and had to go back to scripture to figure out where they went wrong.

Okay. Then do the same with evolution. Science hasn't proven man evolved from apes and still they promote evolution as truth. It's time to go back to the Scriptures to find out where they went wrong.

Our scientific understanding of the age of the earth and evolution is very well established, so yes I am afraid you are wrong. But you are a follower of Jesus Christ and he loves teaching his disciples about metaphor and parables.

The earth is ancient. Science and His Word agree. Evolution is untrue and directly conflicts with His Word.

Yes, we are both followers of Jesus and blessed to be among His disciples....


.

 

[Assyrian]

The struggle to understand is why we are here. Happy Hearts Club made a very profound statement and something well worth repeating....

"The ultimate truthfullness of the matter, however, is if it aligns with scripture - and both human evolution and universal common descent do not, which is the central point."​

The ultimate truthfulness of a matter is if it aligns with reality. God is the one who created the universe if your interpretation of scripture does not line up with reality, then it does not line up with God. Flat earth and geocentrism line up with scripture, but not with reality.

Adam was literal and He was formed by God.

A lot of TEs see Adam that way, Paul interpreted Adam figuratively and I am happy to stick with that until I come across a convincing scriptural argument to interpret him literally as well. But for the sake of this discussion lets assume he was a literal individual

Mankind was created by God. He gave those He created and formed the ability to produce when He created them and in that ability He placed certain restrictions. We, as do animals....have our own kind. Humans produce humans...always have and always will....from the beginning. We didn't evolve into that process but we began that way.

The bible says nothing about reproduction being restricted to kinds (other then choosing a partner of the same species of course), although evolution has only ever been organisms producing more organisms within their clade. Clades divide subdivide and diverge, but always remain within the clade.

Evolution is NOT a picture of the creation of man. It is a lie. It does not in any way, shape or form...align with scripture.

You need to do more than just repeat the claim evolution is a lie. It is not a picture of the creation of man, it is how mankind was formed, how God created us.

If that is the creationist claim...why do you use it? It was an evolutionist that mentioned it previously. I see the argument as without merit in this discussion.

I shouldn't respond to creationists claims?

From the beginning we were created in His image and His likeness. Again, what you say is not aligning with Scripture.

The only issue is how long God took to create the human race in his image. Remember, the bible tells us God's time scales are not ours.

For evolution to be true there would be evidence everywhere of folks morphing from creatures...there are none. We have skeletal remains of many things from ancient times but...not man and not man in evolving stages. Why? There are none.

Again...you aren't aligning with Scripture. He tells us, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." We are among the host of them. We were finished when this earth age began we just awaited flesh birth.

He then tells us....And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.

The seventh day is finished...not ongoing. We aren't living in a sanctified age. It speaks of the time of the millennium but that hasn't yet begun.

I read Hebrews 3 & 4 and saw nothing leading me in another direction from the above.

Hebrew describe God's seventh day rest as a rest we can enter if we hear his voice Today and do not harden our hearts. Paul described the sabbath as a shadow of things to come. Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. The seventh day in Genesis is not a description of God stopping work for a day a few thousand of years ago, it is a prophetic symbolic picture of the rest we will have in God through Christ in the future. God never stopped working. When Jesus was confronted about working on the sabbath, John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Tell me, do you know when a new day began in the bible?

Thank you Assyrian. You are the only one to offer Scriptural documention to bolster evolution. My reply is that the living creatures the "earth brought forward" were "after their kind" and was not God commanding natural processes to produce all different types. They were created and from that creation were to produce after their kind.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
There is nothing in the verse about the creatures producing after their kind. It is the earth God commands to produce all the different kinds. Now you may want to interpret the verse differently, but evolution is certainly consistent with God commanding nature to produce all the vast variety of life on earth.

And yes, we too are animals, some are beasts, all are living creatures but....we were created after the literal animals (lions, tigers and bears, oh my).

...There is a difference in beasts of the field and beasts of the earth.

Beast of the field and beast of the earth are simply differences in style and vocabulary between two creation accounts, Genesis 2&3 says plant to the field, herb of the field, beast of the field. It is the difference between one person saying animals, and another wild animals. Genesis 2 refers to the beast of the field and bird of the air as 'every living creature', the same as the living creatures we read about in Gen 1. When do you think all the birds of the air were created?

It's funny you should mention that. I began working on a thread this morning that has to do with the sun standing still...and what I believe it means.

Thing is, it doesn't matter what you think it means, but that for a millennium and a half people though the passages meant the sun goes round the earth. But when science showed this was wrong they needed to go back and find a better way to interpret them.

In your example given above....did Copernicus tell us that Scripture was wrong or that man interpreted it incorrectly? My point being, Scripture is truth...man messes up. For that reason I have asked for Scriptural documention of evolution. If creationist aren't correctly understanding the creation then evolution should be written.

Copernicus didn't say either. He just showed the earth went round the sun. It was up to the church to figure out how to deal with their interpretation. They didn't go back to scripture and say "oh look, we missed it, scripture really says the earth goes round the sun". Scripture doesn't. They just knew from science their literal interpretation was mistaken.

To me, the arguments are moot and have no bearing on evolution. I didn't bring them up. If memory serves it was an evolutionist that brought them forward as arguments for evolution. But, I have a terrible memory.

We go over the same stuff a lot here

It is literal and in that truth are symbolic uses that point to the literal. The two chapters aren't different sequences of the one event but rather are two different events. The second chapter begins after the seventh day and the events contained therein happen after the seventh day. It isn't repeating the first.

The second creation account is written after the first account, but that does not mean it happened after it. The Gospel of Mark come after Matthew, but it doesn't mean it happened after.

As for a passage telling us to interpret it literally...parables, metaphors, types, shadows, all point to truths. Whether you understand Genesis as being figurative or literal has no bearing on it being the truth. He will not tell us, as is written, that things began as they did and it be lie. There are too many Scriptural hurdles to jump in order to agree with evolution.

How do you go from realising parable and metaphors point to the truth, to thinking if they didn't happen that way it is a lie?

If people throughout the bible give figurative interpretation of Genesis, why is is a problem to interpret it figuratively? I asked if there was a single passage in scripture telling you to interpret Genesis literally, you didn't answer, which I presume means you cannot think of any.

No one pointed out from scripture that the geocentric interpretations were mistaken. They found out from science, and had to go back to scripture to figure out where they went wrong.

Okay. Then do the same with evolution. Science hasn't proven man evolved from apes and still they promote evolution as truth. It's time to go back to the Scriptures to find out where they went wrong.

They didn't go back to scripture to find out Copernicus was wrong. They went back to scripture because their old interpretation was wrong. Incidentally we have vastly more evidence for evolution than there was supporting Copernicus's theory when it was accepted by science and the church.

The earth is ancient. Science and His Word agree. Evolution is untrue and directly conflicts with His Word.

No more conflict than heliocentrism. Less, because there is evidence from scripture itself that Genesis can or even should be interpreted figuratively. And through the long centuries when no one questioned the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages, people like Origen, Augustine and Aquinas were saying Genesis should be interpreted figuratively.

Yes, we are both followers of Jesus and blessed to be among His disciples....
.

You know Jesus had problems with his disciples arguing with each other back then too