How can you say you believe in god?

[JamesAH]

The proof is not in the science. I take it on faith that God was in charge of it all. Can you prove that it was created in six days other than your personal interpretations of Genesis?

Why are you so keen to prove what you should be taking on faith? Proof compels - faith is about choice.

When I ask for proof I ask to back anything that supports Scripture or that it can coexist with Scripture.

There are things that can't coexist with Scripture and one of them is Evolutionism the belief that we are evolved from something other than Adam and Eve.

 

[Mallon]

Hahahahaha ok dude whatever hey I have a talking dog that can do my taxes how about that.

The serpent wasn't a literal snake it was a description of Satan don't believe me than I guess we agree to disagree.

It's funny how you demand Scriptural evidence for evolution, yet when asked for Scriptural evidence that the snake was Satan, you have nothing to say.

 

[Cabal]

When I ask for proof I ask to back anything that supports Scripture or that it can coexist with Scripture.

There are things that can't coexist with Scripture and one of them is Evolutionism the belief that we are evolved from something other than Adam and Eve.

There you go with the absolutism again.

Literalism is still an interpretation.

Evolutionism is compatible with Scripture, if Adam and Eve are symbolic, or God creating us from the dust of the ground is symbolic.*

ETA: In my opinion

 

[JamesAH]

It's funny how you demand Scriptural evidence for evolution, yet when asked for Scriptural evidence that the snake was Satan, you have nothing to say.

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Revelation 20:2
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

 

[JamesAH]

I
Actually I'm the one who started this conversation, by asking you a question you originally did not answer.

Yes I did see post #128 but you never answered mine go figure.

Evolutionism is compatible with Scripture

THAN PROVE IT. That's what I'm trying to get you guys to do but so far you guys haven't done one thing to prove it to me.

 

[Cabal]

THAN PROVE IT. That's what I'm trying to get you guys to do but so far you guys haven't done one thing to prove it to me.

I told you already. It is compatible if Adam and Eve are treated as symbolic; or the creation of man from dust is symbolic. It is consistent not only with the rest of the Bible, but with reality as well.

Additionally, for all your allcaps shouting, you have not "proven" your point of view either.

 

[JamesAH]

Well I guess I'm arguing with a bunch of brick walls here so I'm leaving the thread.

If you guys can't answer my questions than so be it I asked for proof and no one delivered so chow folks have a nice day

 

[Mallon]

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Revelation 20:2
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=Jc49bd5wM17ql271HbheENOQXPntmfybcf7AN+3Xujs=

 

[Mallon]

THAN PROVE IT. That's what I'm trying to get you guys to do but so far you guys haven't done one thing to prove it to me.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/evolutionary_creation.pdf

 

[Sphinx777]

Click Me



​

 

[lucaspa]

When I ask for proof I ask to back anything that supports Scripture or that it can coexist with Scripture.

There are things that can't coexist with Scripture and one of them is Evolutionism the belief that we are evolved from something other than Adam and Eve.

Ironically, something that cannot coexist with Genesis 2 is Genesis 1:25. In Genesis 1:26 (in the Hebrew) God creates men and women, both plural. No Adam and Eve. So you have scripture that cannot coexist with scripture: if you insist on a literalist interpretation.

The Genesis 2-3 creation story is an allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally.

 

[lucaspa]

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Revelation 20:2
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

But the serpent in Genesis 3 is not Satan. How do we know? Because in Job -- which takes place after Genesis 3 -- Satan is 1) in good favor with God and 2) walking the earth.

Revelation was written in code to escape the Roman censors. So you cannot interpret anything in Revelations literally. What's worse, we no longer have the code and really don't know what the author was really trying to say.

 

[lucaspa]

The serpent wasn't a literal snake it was a description of Satan don't believe me than I guess we agree to disagree.

It was a literal serpent. How do we know? Because the punishment in Genesis 3 is for the serpent to lose his legs and crawl on the ground.

God created man in His image once again if we evolved from anything other than A&E back it up otherwise we evolved from Adam and Eve simple as that.

"in His image" doesn't mean that we have any likeness to God, certainly not a physical likeness. After all, God is spirit and has no physical body. Remember the Burning Bush?

As I said, Genesis 1:25 says God created people. There are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3 and they contradict on many points if you read them literally. Those contradictions should be a neon sign to you not to read them literally.

If you believe otherwise than you are throwing the entire OT out the door you might as well rewrite the OT to fit your theology.

Ironically, it is Biblical literalists who are throwing out the theology of Genesis 1-3. In insisting on a literal reading and that they are literal history, Biblical literalists ignore the theological messages in the stories. For instance, the major theological message of Genesis 1 is monotheism. Up until that point Hebrews thought other gods were real, it was just that Yahweh was their god. Genesis 1 changes all that and has Yahweh be the only god in existence.

And ... no, you are not throwing out the entire OT. The creation stories do not affect the Exodus at all, for instance. It is in Exodus (written first), where we get the major theological messages that Yahweh exists, chooses the Hebrews as His chosen people, creates out of nothing (Israel), and lays down the basics of Israelite society.

 

[lucaspa]

Satan is called a murderer from the beginning.

Where? In Job Satan is simply the prosecutor in a system of justice. With Satan not being a murderer, your entire chain of "logic" collapses.

Who did he kill in the beginning? Adam in Genesis chapter 3.

Satan didn't kill anyone. God proclaimed that if Adam ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam would die. Satan didn't do the death, Adam did by disobeying God.

And the death was spiritual, not literal. You have ignored that if Adam was "murdered" physically, how is it Adam lived for 900 years? Not much of a "murder" if the victim keeps living.

It was very literal. Spiritual death is far worse than any physical death.

By saying "spiritual death" you have contradicted that the passage is literal. You just shot yourself in the foot.

But yes, spiritual death is far worse than physical death. Which is why we have the theme in scripture of God continually looking for ways to keep humans from spiritual death. The Laws were one attempt. The prophets were another. Finally, of course, we have Jesus' sacrifice and death coupled with God's forgiveness.

It was by God's mercy alone that he was allowed to live on all those years physically at that point.

And scripture says that where? At the end of Genesis 3 God says that Adam could eat of the fruit of the Tree of Everlasting Life and live forever. Are you seriously saying that God's power can be negated by some fruit?

 

[lucaspa]

Yet it is written, in the beginning God communicated directly with whom He made in hIs image. Right then and there. It was intentional...this making man in His image, whom He walked in a garden in the cool of the day, with.

"in His image" does not mean we bear any physical resemblance to God. How could we? God does not have a physical shape. He is pure spirit. Or are you challenging all of Christian theology?

"in His image" means that God is giving humans power ("dominion") over the animals of the earth. "in His image" was a phrase used at the time for an ambassador who could make binding treaties for his soveriegn.

Now, God creating humans by evolution does not negate the ability of God to communicate with humans. In fact, humans may be the only organisms with whom God can directly communicate.

BTW, in Genesis 1 the Hebrew word is "men". Plural. God makes people. Genesis 2-3 is an allegory. The "walking" in the garden is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[lucaspa]

Because it goes against Scripture.

It goes against your interpretation of scripture. See the first quote in my signature for how Christians handle a contradiction between "sound science" and an interpretation of scripture.

So what you are saying is that we evolved from apes/monkeys,fish,reptiles,DNA goo or other evolutionary ways?

Well, we did not evolve from either apes or monkeys. Instead, we share a common ancestor with them. Apes and monkeys are our evolutionary cousins, not our ancestors. We actually evolved most recently from H. ergastor which, in turn, evolved from H. habilis which evolved from A. afarensis. We have the transitional individuals linking these species.

But yes, in general the processes discovered by science are how God created us. God created a complete universe. It goes against scripture to have to have God directly poof things into existence that can be materially connected. Such a "poof" makes God part of the universe, and that is not acceptable to Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

Than show me Scripture to back your claim up.

You are forgetting that God has two books. One of them is scripture. The other is Creation itself. This realization that God has two books has been part of Christianity from the beginning.

You are failing to listen to God both in His Creation and in scripture.

 

[lucaspa]

Troodon

Once again SHOW ME IN SCRIPTURE THAT WE EVOLVED FROM ANYTHING OTHER THAN ADAM AND EVE.

You keep evading my question by asking me more questions. I'm not the one on trial here you are if you can't answer my question than don't reply to me please.

I won't answer your questions because I'm the one that's asking them for proof not the other way around.

JamesAH, you are missing the point. The point is that the scripture is silent on any number of things. For instance, the principles that make computers possible are not mentioned in scripture.

However, I note that Genesis 1:25 says that we are descended from others than Adam and Eve.

So the point is that you are making an irrelevant criteria. You accept the existence of lots of things discovered by science that are not mentioned in scripture. In fact, you accept the existence of things that are contradicted by scripture. There are many verses that require a flat earth, but you accept that the earth is round. There are many verses where scripture says, in plain Hebrew, that the earth does not move. But you accept that the earth moves as it orbits the sun.

So the question you need to ask yourself is why you require scriptural confirmation of evolution when you do not require scriptural confirmation for magnetism, round earth, moving earth, electronics, etc.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolutionism is compatible with Scripture, if Adam and Eve are symbolic, or God creating us from the dust of the ground is symbolic.*

Cabal, you might want to be careful with the word "evolutionism". Evolution is compatible with scripture. But evolutionism is used as a synonym for atheistic evolution. That, of course, is not compatible with scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Cabal, you might be careful with the word "evolutionism". Evolution is compatible with scripture. But evolutionism is used as a synonym for atheistic evolution. That, of course, is not compatible with scripture.

Never heard of it being described that way.

Btw, what do you or others here think about this movie concerning Evolution vs the Bible?

YouTube - Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind