Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

[Naraoia]

Yes, we do appear to be getting somewhere. So you are saying that God himself is controlling how the Sin nature is passed on genetically, and restricting it to the father's "house"? That He prevents the Sin nature of the mother from being present in the DNA houses of the ovum?

That, I must admit, would at least make some sense in a "God can do anything" sort of way.

But it also raises the question of why the heck bring DNA into it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it also raises the question of why the heck bring DNA into it.

DNA is only the carrier --- it houses the Sin Nature until it gets to its destination.

 

[Skaloop]

But it also raises the question of why the heck bring DNA into it.

I'm taking baby steps on this one.

 

[Naraoia]

DNA is only the carrier --- it houses the Sin Nature until it gets to its destination.

Ah, OK. I just don't get why the omnipotent God needs a carrier at all.

I have the wrong mindset, I know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, OK. I just don't get why the omnipotent God needs a carrier at all.

I have the wrong mindset, I know.

Is this because you think God should just sit on His throne and dole out the Sin Nature to everyone at the moment of conception?

No, He certainly doesn't need a carrier, but by making Adam the federal head of the human race, all Jesus had to do is die once for all.

Otherwise, Jesus would have to come back and die for each and every person ever born.

That's why Jesus is referred to as the "Second Adam" in that Christmas carol - (God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen - I think it is).

 

[pgp_protector]

Ah, OK. I just don't get why the omnipotent God needs a carrier at all.

I have the wrong mindset, I know.

Well how else will he make sure every one has a sin nature unless he personally passes the sin nature on to each one of us.

wait. why would God act like that

 

[Cabal]

Is this because you think God should just sit on His throne and dole out the Sin Nature to everyone at the moment of conception?

Yeah, funny that, maybe it's because you posited a Sin nature as being genetic, perhaps?

No, He certainly doesn't need a carrier, but by making Adam the federal head of the human race, all Jesus had to do is die once for all.

Otherwise, Jesus would have to come back and die for each and every person ever born.

The way you describe Him, you'd think He wasn't omnipotent

 

[AV1611VET]

Well how else will he make sure every one has a sin nature unless he personally passes the sin nature on to each one of us.

wait. why would God act like that

Yeah, funny that, maybe it's because you posited a Sin nature as being genetic, perhaps?



The way you describe Him, you'd think He wasn't omnipotent

Ya --- make your jokes and accusations.

They you'll wonder why you don't understand anything.

These smileys were tailor-made for you guys:

• 
• 
• 
• 

 

[uke2se]

Well how else will he make sure every one has a sin nature unless he personally passes the sin nature on to each one of us.

wait. why would God act like that

Wait a minute... Was Adam created without DNA and recieved it as some sort of punishment after eating the fruit, or was his DNA contaminated with sin-DNA after The Munching? Also, why wasn't Eve's DNA contaminated?

Also, is this sin-DNA contagious?

 

[pgp_protector]

Okay --- now we're getting somewhere.

As Mark said, and I agree, sin is spiritual --- so is the Sin Nature.

So when the father gives the DNA house to either his son or his daughter, the Sin Nature exits that house and becomes part of the flesh.

Then, when the daughter marries and has children of her own, the Sin Nature of her children will be transmitted to them via their father's house.

Her houses won't have the Sin Nature residing in any of them --- his will.

Problem.
Your "houses" (representing DNA) are just Atoms, chemical, are you saying Sin hides in the chemical arrangement, but it's not the chemical arrangement isself ?

 

[Cabal]

Ya --- make your jokes and accusations.

They you'll wonder why you don't understand anything.

These smileys were tailor-made for you guys:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Or you could just face up to the glaring holes in your theology, perhaps? Instead of sulking and running away like you always do?

 

[AV1611VET]

Problem.
Your "houses" (representing DNA) are just Atoms, chemical, are you saying Sin hides in the chemical arrangement, but it's not the chemical arrangement isself ?

As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.

 

[Cabal]

As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.

Makes you wonder why you bothered introducing sin as being genetic to begin with, then.

So much for not being homo sapiens.....

 

[pgp_protector]

As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.

And how does something Spiritual get transferred, what's the mechanism ?

 

[Assyrian]

Ok, lets look at this a minute. As an exposition of the proof texts it's nicely done. The writer simply says that it's reasonable to consider the body of Jesus to be a special creation and as the second Adam Jesus would have had a flawless DNA code. It's a nice exposition.

...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)​

Only Adam is properly spoken of as the, 'son of God', in that he had no human parents.

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.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The lions and tigers and bears God formed had no lion or tiger or bear parents either. Does that make them sons of God too? Calling Adam the 'son of God' is hardly speaking literally, especially in a genealogy which is talking about a long line of biological parenthood. As far as I know only Mormons take this literally and think God really was Adam's biological father.

Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)​

This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam figuratively. They simply have no answer for this

Wow!

just as they have no answer for the book of Genesis being an historical narrative representing the genealogical pedigree of mankind in general (the generations of Adam) and the Hebrews (the generations of Abraham) respectively.

If you assume Genesis is a historical narrative. But isn't that begging the question? Interestingly Luke describes the genealogy in his gospel as what people 'supposed' Jesus' genealogy was. Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli... Suppositions about genealogies don't make a good basis for doctrine.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I wonder if MK would claim "evil atheist conspiracy" if he ever has a discussion with Kenneth Miller or any other Christian evolution-accepter. I also wonder if he realizes that some of the "scientists that haunt this board" actually have degrees in genetics.

I've seen him mention Francis Collins before, so he's obviously aware that there are Christians who are also scientists and accept evolution. But I'm sure he's compartmentalized it, since it doesn't fit into his little conspiracy theory view of science.

 

[Assyrian]

GuidanceNeeded gave this link to me, which contains this passage:

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).

SOURCE

In addition, Homo sapiens have a [Homo] predecessor --- mankind doesn't --- (except for God, that is).

There is a bigger problem here than trying to link sin and DNA. This theology seems to deny the incarnation, that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully God.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Yet according to this, Jesus was not really born of a human mother, she was just surrogate, and if Jesus was completely unrelated to the human race, why would he even be under the law?

Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

The bible says Jesus shared our flesh and blood, that he was made like us in every respect, that he knows what it is like to be tempted because he was tempted too. If Jesus was a separate creation, born without a 'sin nature' how would he know what we go through? How was he made like us in every respect, tempted like us in every respect, if human nature is supposed to have been changed and corrupted utterly at the fall and Jesus was made like Adam was before the fall?

 

[mark kennedy]

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.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The lions and tigers and bears God formed had no lion or tiger or bear parents either. Does that make them sons of God too?

Their lineage has nothing to do with redemptive history, Adam does. I like the satire but I stammer and stutter at calling it Christian. Believers affirm the gospel they don't cast aspiration and resort to this kind of whimsical mockery.

1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:1-2

There are a number of Christians that are taken in by this modern mythology but not all of those who profess faith share it.

Calling Adam the 'son of God' is hardly speaking literally, especially in a genealogy which is talking about a long line of biological parenthood. As far as I know only Mormons take this literally and think God really was Adam's biological father.

What I find strange is I have less of a problem with the cults and Catholic legalism then I do with TE as it is propagated on here. I don't really care if you take Genesis literally or not, I don't really care what you think about evangelical or fundamentalist theology. How you treat doctrine is another matter and to make a mockery of so much Christian scholarship is yet another proof positive for me that TE is nothing but a secular philosophy in sheep's clothing.

Wow!

It isn't that difficult to comprehend, the text is explicit.

If you assume Genesis is a historical narrative. But isn't that begging the question?

No, you either believe it or not. If you want to cater to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians then be my guest but be advised, theistic evolution is next.

Interestingly Luke describes the genealogy in his gospel as what people 'supposed' Jesus' genealogy was. Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli... Suppositions about genealogies don't make a good basis for doctrine.

Why don't you just admit it, you don't believe the historicity of the Bible. You might think you are making a point here but all I see is the desperate attempt of someone compromising Christian conviction in favor of party spirit. Luke traces the lineage of man back to Adam, the first man. That makes him a creationist in every way that has meaning. Paul speaks of Adam as a man, the first man, in no uncertain terms but there was no need for him to dwell on it since there was no question in the mind of Jews at that time.

I take a lot of things in the Bible literally that others don't, it creates no inward struggle to do that. I was out looking for a Bible study and an interesting discussion of Christian Apologetics. Instead what I found was a host of professing Christians who busy themselves mocking at Biblical exposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

There is a bigger problem here than trying to link sin and DNA. This theology seems to deny the incarnation, that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully God.

That is absurd but let's see how you twist the Scriptures to your philosophy.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

This ought to be good.

Yet according to this, Jesus was not really born of a human mother, she was just surrogate, and if Jesus was completely unrelated to the human race, why would he even be under the law?

He was under the law because he was Hebrew. There is nothing about the virgin birth the contradicts that. What is more becoming man makes Jesus intimately related to the human race.

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things...he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (Heb 2:14)

How this is untrue given the special creation of Adam is a mystery to me.

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Ok, let's get to the point.

The bible says Jesus shared our flesh and blood, that he was made like us in every respect, that he knows what it is like to be tempted because he was tempted too. If Jesus was a separate creation, born without a 'sin nature' how would he know what we go through? How was he made like us in every respect, tempted like us in every respect, if human nature is supposed to have been changed and corrupted utterly at the fall and Jesus was made like Adam was before the fall?

Christ was like us in every way except he had what we lack, the righteousness of God. Adam and Eve were innocent but that does not mean they were righteous.

I have never been impressed with how evolutionists argue science but I'm even less impressed with their theology, if that's what they call it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Their lineage has nothing to do with redemptive history, Adam does. I like the satire but I stammer and stutter at calling it Christian. Believers affirm the gospel they don't cast aspiration and resort to this kind of whimsical mockery.

1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:1-2

There are a number of Christians that are taken in by this modern mythology but not all of those who profess faith share it.

All ad hom, and not a single answer to my point. Oh well.

What I find strange is I have less of a problem with the cults and Catholic legalism then I do with TE as it is propagated on here. I don't really care if you take Genesis literally or not, I don't really care what you think about evangelical or fundamentalist theology. How you treat doctrine is another matter and to make a mockery of so much Christian scholarship is yet another proof positive for me that TE is nothing but a secular philosophy in sheep's clothing.

I don't know why you have such a problem with TEs either. YEC seems to have that effect on some believers, it is what first made me think modern creationism is not of the Spirit of God.

Mark: Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the [FONT=&quot]figure[/FONT] of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam [FONT=&quot]figuratively[/FONT]. They simply have no answer for this

Assyrian: Wow!

Mark: It isn't that difficult to comprehend, the text is explicit.

Yes the text is pretty explicit. That is why I simply replied with a 'Wow!' You quote Paul clearly describing Adam as figure of Christ and immediately claim it is an error to take Adam figuratively. Again, wow! If I did not know YECs I would have thought you were joking, In fact I did think you were having a laugh for a second.

No, you either believe it or not.

Believe it? Or believe it is a historical narrative? Big difference.

If you want to cater to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians then be my guest but be advised, theistic evolution is next.

We survived catering to the naturalistic assumptions of round earthers and heliocentrists. Turns out the scientists were right. The church catered to their naturalistic assumptions, and yet it is still going strong.

Why don't you just admit it, you don't believe the historicity of the Bible. You might think you are making a point here but all I see is the desperate attempt of someone compromising Christian conviction in favor of party spirit. Luke traces the lineage of man back to Adam, the first man. That makes him a creationist in every way that has meaning.

And yet he described Jesus genealogy as what people 'supposed'. Should I not believe Luke because you want to suppose it too.

Paul speaks of Adam as a man, the first man, in no uncertain terms but there was no need for him to dwell on it since there was no question in the mind of Jews at that time.

And yet when Paul talks of Adam as the first man, he immediately describes Jesus as the second man. 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. If you read Genesis as a historical narrative, isn't the second man Cain? Or is Paul doing what he told us about in Romans, reading Adam figuratively? I do not know why you would make the claim "there was no question in the mind of Jews at that time". I though I pointed out to you before that both Josephus and Philo, first century Jews from pretty diverse backgrounds, interpreted Adam allegorically. Not only was Paul interpreting Adam figuratively in both Romans and 1Cor, he fitted in very well with first century Jewish allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

I take a lot of things in the Bible literally that others don't, it creates no inward struggle to do that. I was out looking for a Bible study and an interesting discussion of Christian Apologetics. Instead what I found was a host of professing Christians who busy themselves mocking at Biblical exposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

TEs regularly discuss biblical exposition with you, it is difficult because we have to persevere through all the insults and condemnation you keep throwing at us. Is putting up with a bit of whimsy such a terrible price for you to pay? Jesus used gnats and camels to illustrate the flaws in Pharisees' biblical exposition, are lions and tigers and bears such an unchristian illustration to use? Or is it the fact you did not have an answer to the gaping hole I pointed out in your exposition?