God used Evolution to create Man

PGL

Member
Jun 3, 2018
19
3
73
Arlington
✟8,159.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.


Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142

As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.


Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?


Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145



The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146


And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)


Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?


The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149


And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)


Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162


Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!


What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?


God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)


In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)


But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)


1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.


What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).


Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153


The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.


It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167


The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?


The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178



And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)


It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.


The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!


If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
 

PGL

Member
Jun 3, 2018
19
3
73
Arlington
✟8,159.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The most cohesive, logical, scientifically and scripturally validated explanation of spiritual reality (Christ versus Religion) is contained in the newly released book- "A Message for the Human Race".

In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible. Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid. Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:

If a “spiritual universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”


 
Upvote 0

PGL

Member
Jun 3, 2018
19
3
73
Arlington
✟8,159.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Southernscotty

Well-Known Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2018
6,616
9,612
52
Arkansas
✟504,848.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Celibate
  • Agree
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

PGL

Member
Jun 3, 2018
19
3
73
Arlington
✟8,159.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many authors have written books involving the interpretation of prophecy, primarily on the books of Daniel and Revelation. The first thing that must be realized concerning this subject is that the prophetic symbology of Revelation cannot be correctly understood or interpreted by using the analytical ability of the mind. Few of the popular authors in this field have exhibited more than a small amount of spiritual insight, with the result that the fruits of their labor are equally capable of attainment by an unbeliever who, of course, would be incapable of any true spiritual enlightenment.

Also, the popular authors tend to interpret only those portions of Scripture that would appeal to their reading audience and to avoid portions that might be offensive and thus endanger the appeal of their books.

Finally, some authors have deliberately demanded acceptance by their readers of unjustified interpretations of specific verses, even telling their readers that a certain specific word should actually be a different specific word, as a necessity to support erroneous conclusions on their part. Such a demand by them is not interpretation; it is changing the words of the Bible.

No verse of the Bible is subject to private interpretation, i.e., that of interpretation out of context, the Word of God is a whole entity. In this chapter, as in this entire book, what I have to say concerning Scripture and Scriptural matters should be evaluated with the whole Bible as a yardstick, for such is the true determination of accuracy.


So Christ also having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. (Heb. 9:28)



But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. (Matt. 24:36)


Anyone who sets a precise date for the ending of this age- regardless of source or reasoning- is wrong!


Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh; even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. (Matt. 24:32‑34)


It has been realized by students of the Bible for more than a hundred years that the parable of the fig tree meant that Israel would become a nation again.

Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948.


It is clear from the correlation between these verses that the great earthquake of the sixth seal occurs shortly before the last three and a half years <the great Tribulation> of this age.

Although this earthquake will be of supernatural magnitude, unlike the subsequent calamities of the great Tribulation, it will have natural causes. Can we thus determine approximately when this earthquake is likeliest to occur?


And there shall be signs in sun and moon and stars; ...for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (Luke 21:25-26)


Notice that Luke 21:25‑26 is a description of outward signs also occurring at this timeWhat are the only signs in the sun that are visible to the naked eye? Sunspots! The word translated as 'stars' in Luke 21:25 may equally be in reference to the planets. Is there a connection between the cause of this great earthquake and these other, simultaneously occurring outward signs?


According to Wood, the next two sunspot cycles will peak in 1982 & 1993...307


Now, to the surprise of many scientists, there has come evidence that the alignments of the planets can, for sound scientific reasons, affect the behavior of the earth. But one of these occasions‑ an alignment of the planets which occurs only once every 179 years‑ is due in 1982. ... 309



The most likely time for the triggering of the earthquake is the time midway between the spring and fall of 1982. Thus, the focal point of likeliest time is the day of August 5, 1982, midway between spring and fall.


Almost certainly this was the star that the Wise‑men followed, and it was the tail of Halley's comet that was used by God to point their way.


The next appearance of Halley's comet will be in 1986 ... it will appear brightest in February of 1986 . . 318


Coincidence or fulfillment of prophecy?

The alignment of the planets converges with a sunspot peak only once every 1,969 years. Due to the mortality of short‑period comets, this will almost certainly be the only time that such a convergence is followed at the appropriate time by an appearance of Haley’s Comet. In this situation, we have the precise concurrence of a series of events that is unique, with a single event (Israel) that is likewise unique, all of which was prophesied nineteen centuries ago. Mathematically, there is no chance whatsoever that these events are merely coincidental.



...as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time. ...but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth. 314


What is the significance of the six days of the restoration and the seventh day of rest spoken of in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2?

The thousand‑year (to us) period of the millennial kingdom will not only be the wedding day of Christ and His bride but will also be the (seventh) day of rest for God, ...the six days of the restoration must also correspond to the period of time from the forming of the spirit in man to the beginning of the millennial kingdom.


Deduction based on various statements in the Bible; however, place the date of creation only a few thousand years in the past. The precise date usually found in the headings of the King James Bible is 4004 B.C., this date having been worked out by the Irish theologian James Ussher (1581‑1656). 319


...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8)


This date of 4004 B.C. is a date indicated by the Scriptures.

As we have seen previously, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Thus, it was four of the Lord's days (exactly 4,000 of our years) from the indicted date of "creation" to the birth of Christ. Using the same reckoning, the time of the Lord's return (which will be at the beginning of the seventh day, the millennium) should be the year 1996. If He has not returned by this time, then He has tarried because the bride still hasn’t made herself ready.


I think that the following conclusions are both accurate and appropriate:

1. Before midnight Israeli time August 4‑5, 1982 the last 3 1/2 years before the physical return of Christ (the Great Tribulation) could not begin. Now it can begin anytime.

2. We still see through a glass darkly what the 3 1/2 years before (the first half of the last week of years) that will transpire as.

3. In His mercy, the Lord has tarried. He probably should have been back no later than 1996.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Simply, nothing.

Man's knowledge and wisdom , which leads mankind away from God, is called foolishness by God, in His Word, and by His Son Jesus.

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here?
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Does this actually sound logical to you ?
It's not.
Mosaic laws were not given yet, and did not apply.
i.e. nothing is clear, here.
It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest)
 
Upvote 0

Southernscotty

Well-Known Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2018
6,616
9,612
52
Arkansas
✟504,848.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Celibate
It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑
There were no Mosaic laws then as it was before Moses.. lol
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,564
1,546
44
Uruguay
✟451,502.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thing is if God made us evolving, then each 'mutation' was directly guided by Him, making natural selection useless. And i don't know if God would prefer to make an 'ancestor' and then all life in sequence like that in billions of tiny steps. Being God he is creative and i don't know why he would need to do that at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,400
45,359
67
✟2,923,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
YES HIS GLORY :D
And to enjoy Him forever :D (sorry, I just can't get the Presbyterian out of me ^_^)

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.

,
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Also, the closer we walk with God and read His Word and He grants understanding His Way, the more we see that man's ways are not His Ways at all, not even close,
and the errors of man's ways become more and more clear as God Permits, as we grow in union with Jesus and with one another and overcome the enemy by the word of our testimony and by the BLOOD OF THE LAMB.


Thing is if God made us evolving, then each 'mutation' was directly guided by Him, making natural selection useless. And i don't know if God would prefer to make an 'ancestor' and then all life in sequence like that in billions of tiny steps. Being God he is creative and i don't know why he would need to do that at all.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.


Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142

As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.


Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?


Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145



The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146


And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)


Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?


The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149


And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)


Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162


Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!


What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?


God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)


In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)


But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)


1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.


What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).


Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153


The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.


It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167


The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?


The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178



And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)


It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.


The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!


If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

It seems your points are seen through the lens of evolution. Of course it won't sound like creationism when the lens used is inaccurate. Creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence. The difference is which paradigm is being used to explain the evidence. When you use the evolutionary interpretation, it's designed to sound like evolution, but it doesn't actually make it the correct interpretation.

To the point of Cain's wife, it doesn't say who it was and the Mosaic violation of incest, shockingly didn't come around until Moses.

As for as Noah and his family, what requirement said God had to also kill his children in the flood? You're imposing your own requirement and just expecting others to abide by it. But if you are looking for a parallel, He didn't kill Adam and Eve's sons either.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I guess it's kind of a shame that God went out of His way to say that, after He had created all the beasts and birds, that He formed Adam with His own hands. What a waste of text if Adam was a product of all the beasts that evolved before him.

Kind of a shame that God said that there was no female human for Adam.... and that this was not good... thus took one of Adam's ribs and made a female from the "somehow evolved male with no female to have birthed the male or males or whatever" before Adam.

God should have been more careful than to state the Man was made in His image.... by His hands.

This is all sarcasm.... by the way.

God goes out of His way to state:

There was morning, there was evening... the 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day and so on. Why is that? Do you think that God knew that these days, each 24 hour literal day, would be disputed?

God goes out of His way to state that He created Adam in His image with His hands... and there was no woman. He breathed into Adam, life and a soul.

Why did He do that? Go to that extent to explain the creation of the first man... with no woman around... then describe the procedure to produce a woman?

Why is that? Could it be due to the fact that God knew that men would purport that all life came from some random single life form?

Why did God create plants before sunlight? Could it be as a tracer to prove that there was not billions of years between the days as "men of wisdom" teach? Due to the fact that the plants would have died without sunlight?


The way I see it is that God has gone to certain extremes in order to make it clear that these were literal 24 hour days... AND.. God made each creature... as it is..with no evolving... AND God, in His final work of wonder, made a human man, no evolving from animals, but a human male, in His image, with His hands, to perfection... Then, later made this man a wife, from this mans rib.. again with no evolving..

People, it's time we gave God the honor and glory for which He is due for both being capable of and actually doing what He said He did.

It's time to understand that the musings, extrapolation, assumptions and guesses of "educated" men of "wisdom" are all foolishness.

Let God be true and every man a liar..... God's word is truth, it is living, it is real

Anything that contradicts it.... will be exposed for the foolishness that it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ItIsFinished!
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,406
60
✟92,791.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.


Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142

As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.


Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?


Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145



The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146


And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)


Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?


The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149


And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)


Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162


Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!


What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?


God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)


In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)


But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)


1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.


What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).


Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153


The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.


It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167


The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?


The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178



And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)


It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.


The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!


If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
When the Hebrew priest were compiling the story of their origins in Babylon they had no way of knowing about science and evolution. They appropriated the Mesopotamian story of Adam, assuming he was the first man. The earth, it's age and the fossils within the stratified layers present a completely different story. The scriptures were intended for spiritual instruction to an Israelite audience.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
This is all opposed to Scripture, entirely wrong information, from a cult member believing in urantia, rejecting Jesus and the Bible and Yahweh.

When the Hebrew priest were compiling the story of their origins in Babylon they had no way of knowing about science and evolution. They appropriated the Mesopotamian story of Adam, assuming he was the first man. The earth, it's age and the fossils within the stratified layers present a completely different story. The scriptures were intended for spiritual instruction to an Israelite audience.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
This is all false, with many false ideas also posted with it by this poster, all contrary to the Bible, for whatever reason (there is no good reason to reject the Bible, since whoever rejects the Bible rejects the Father and rejects Jesus, losing the chance for eternal life) ....

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
When the Hebrew priest were compiling the story of their origins in Babylon they had no way of knowing about science and evolution. They appropriated the Mesopotamian story of Adam, assuming he was the first man. The earth, it's age and the fossils within the stratified layers present a completely different story. The scriptures were intended for spiritual instruction to an Israelite audience.
The Bible and it's scriptures were not written by men and a finite wisdom. They were inspired by God and are based on a knowledge far beyond our own.
They were not limited by what knowledge was available at the time of their writing.
They are not limited by the lack of technology of the age.
They are not limited by the general view of the days that they were written.

They are living, timeless and contain all the knowledge of the creator... despite the limits of the era they were penned.

Anything that contradicts the truth of the Biblical scripture will be shown to be foolish.
 
Upvote 0