"In His Name, the Gentiles will trust" - what will "Evolutionist Gentiles" trust in Him?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So "Evolution" has become a sort of black box to me - I don't really know what to say to something that is essentially an unpredictable double pendulum; it neither recognises male and female, nor does it predict survivability, for example. But I started to draw on scripture and think "maybe the answer doesn't have to come from me"; as in, I started to think, maybe there is structure in the Bible, that can serve as an answer, to Evolution: that will be far better than anything I could dream up.

One particular scripture, says "in His Name, the Gentiles will trust". I can lay hold of that, as a promise, specifically for "Evolutionist Gentiles" - there will be something that Evolutionists trust of Jesus, that they won't trust anyone else for (I don't know what it is, but it will be something!). For one thing, they can't complain that Jesus is not a "species", because we have the faith (the "Christian" faith); for another thing, it must be said that His Lineage was a Perfect Lineage. Surely that counts for something!

There is a possibility that the answer, to Jesus' contribution to the Gentile gene pool,, will be simply cold - because Jesus doesn't count that love will necessarily survive all that is hurled at it. In other words, people may just prefer "lawlessness" over any "Christian" answer that requires hard work (basically!). I don't even really know what to guess, myself: is it Jesus living or dead, that makes the difference? Is it a warning or a blessing, that Jesus hung on that cross? These are not necessarily important questions (more-so than any other is important) but they are constructive questions - questions that reveal something about the person answering them.

So I haven't posted this in the Science forum, but I am sort of fielding it here, so that you can pick at it and maybe give me some pointers or suggestions,, as to what angle I should take, if at all: is there a better scripture? is the approach blunt enough, to be inclusive but also constructive? You can see from this that I am taking it seriously - one of the insults made against me is that I am not really attempting to learn "Evolution" - but I just wonder if maybe I am trying to use a shield of faith meant for standing opponents (you know in the sense that they say "you can't take it lying down").

Thanks for your help.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi there,

So "Evolution" has become a sort of black box to me - I don't really know what to say to something that is essentially an unpredictable double pendulum; it neither recognises male and female, nor does it predict survivability, for example. But I started to draw on scripture and think "maybe the answer doesn't have to come from me"; as in, I started to think, maybe there is structure in the Bible, that can serve as an answer, to Evolution: that will be far better than anything I could dream up.

One particular scripture, says "in His Name, the Gentiles will trust". I can lay hold of that, as a promise, specifically for "Evolutionist Gentiles" - there will be something that Evolutionists trust of Jesus, that they won't trust anyone else for (I don't know what it is, but it will be something!). For one thing, they can't complain that Jesus is not a "species", because we have the faith (the "Christian" faith); for another thing, it must be said that His Lineage was a Perfect Lineage. Surely that counts for something!

There is a possibility that the answer, to Jesus' contribution to the Gentile gene pool,, will be simply cold - because Jesus doesn't count that love will necessarily survive all that is hurled at it. In other words, people may just prefer "lawlessness" over any "Christian" answer that requires hard work (basically!). I don't even really know what to guess, myself: is it Jesus living or dead, that makes the difference? Is it a warning or a blessing, that Jesus hung on that cross? These are not necessarily important questions (more-so than any other is important) but they are constructive questions - questions that reveal something about the person answering them.

So I haven't posted this in the Science forum, but I am sort of fielding it here, so that you can pick at it and maybe give me some pointers or suggestions,, as to what angle I should take, if at all: is there a better scripture? is the approach blunt enough, to be inclusive but also constructive? You can see from this that I am taking it seriously - one of the insults made against me is that I am not really attempting to learn "Evolution" - but I just wonder if maybe I am trying to use a shield of faith meant for standing opponents (you know in the sense that they say "you can't take it lying down").

Thanks for your help.

All through God's word it tells us that God created all that we see, including every creature. The Bible uses words like "formed", "made", "created", all of which indicate that evolution is simply false. Either you accept what science has to say or you take God at His word. Evolution, to me, is nonsensical. God's word makes perfect sense. Why do people not believe the Bible? The god of this world, Satan, has blinded the eyes of those who are perishing. Their minds have become dark and foolish. Only God can open their eyes and that will happen if and when they become open to truth.

The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. Use that wisely and perhaps some will be convicted and saved.

 

[Tolworth John]

Evolutionist Gentiles"

What do you mean by this?
As far as the Bible is concerned there are unsaved sinners and saved sinners.
There are no other distinctions.

Jesus' contribution to the Gentile gene pool

Jesus was unmarried. So had no children and made no contribution to the gene pool.

don't even really know what to guess, myself: is it Jesus living or dead, that makes the difference?

Please read 1 Corinthians 15:14 if Christ has not been raised our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Basically if you think Jesus is still in a grave somewhere in Israel then there is no Christianity.
It is that simple.

 

[coffee4u]

one of the insults made against me is that I am not really attempting to learn "Evolution"

Why should you? It's a doctrine of lies, wrapped up in science.

Evolutionists use word semantics to get around anything you say.
Creation is outside of science.

Also God doesn't view us as gentiles any longer. Christianity is based upon Jesus diying for our sins and raising to life again.

 

[The Barbarian]

So "Evolution" has become a sort of black box to me - I don't really know what to say to something that is essentially an unpredictable double pendulum; it neither recognises male and female, nor does it predict survivability, for example.

You've been misled about that. For example, I can predict that if Chicago has a really hard winter, sparrows in Chicago will be somewhat larger than normal, the following year. Because even a difference of a millimeter in the length of a sparrow breastbone, will affect its survivability in a bad winter. And of course, the reproduction strategies of different organisms will sometimes favor sexual reproduction, and sometimes not, depending on their circumstances. Would you like to learn about that?

there will be something that Evolutionists trust of Jesus,

Creationists are no less likely to trust Him; they just don't approve of some of the things He does. Evolutionists aren't the only Christians. He doesn't care if you like evolution or not.

I don't even really know what to guess, myself: is it Jesus living or dead, that makes the difference?

He's alive. You don't have to worry about that. As He said, He would rise again, and He did.

You can see from this that I am taking it seriously - one of the insults made against me is that I am not really attempting to learn "Evolution"

You can start by merely telling God that whether He did everything by special creation, or whether He uses evolution as He uses other parts of nature to effect His will, you accept it as He chose it. That's a good start. Then go with an open mind and see what the evidence shows.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think you should sell Jesus short.

There is a place in the heart of the World, that is not there for anyone else.

If that means that Evolutionists will trust each other's "Evolution", we are all the better for it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus is alive. You don't have to worry about that. As He said, He would rise again, and He did.

I don't think you should sell Jesus short.

Then just accept Him and His message.

There is a place in the heart of the World, that is not there for anyone else.

If you can't say it plainly, you probably don't have it clearly set in your mind.

If that means that Evolutionists will trust each other's "Evolution", we are all the better for it?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[-57]

The problem with mixing evolutionism and the bible is that they don't mix.
For example, Eve being made from Adams rib isn't anywhere near evolution. Secondly Eve being the mother of all also contradicts evolutionism.

The most heretical of the teachings..mixing...is that evolutionism does away with the fall in the garden and mans sin nature.

 

[Brightmoon]

And since the “ evolutionists “ have all that evidence to support them no one cares what erroneous opinions creationists have about it

 

[JackRT]

Jesus was unmarried. So had no children and made no contribution to the gene pool.

I am not entirely certain about that.

 

[-57]

And since the “ evolutionists “ have all that evidence to support them no one cares what erroneous opinions creationists have about it

The evolutionist also have evidence that when you die...on day 3 you don't resurrect.

 

[-57]

I am not entirely certain about that.

That would mean Jesus' children would not have a sin nature...just like Him.

But, I'll stick with what the bible says...or in this case doesn't say, that is Jesus got married.

 

[JackRT]

The most heretical of the teachings..mixing...is that evolutionism does away with the fall in the garden and mans sin nature.

Evolution itself says nothing at all about that although there are some evolutionists who may state their personal views about that. Even within Christianity there are those who interpret these passages in Genesis differently.

 

[-57]

Evolution itself says nothing at all about that although there are some evolutionists who may state their personal views about that. Even within Christianity there are those who interpret these passages in Genesis differently.

True, many like the evolutionist get it wrong and for obvious reasons.

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem with mixing evolutionism and the bible is that they don't mix.

Because they are different things. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. It doesn't teach science.

For example, Eve being made from Adams rib isn't anywhere near evolution.

Neither are mountains shouting praises. Figurative language isn't wrong, it's just wrong to try to interpret it as literal history.

Secondly Eve being the mother of all also contradicts evolutionism.

No, you've been misled about that. There's no reason why a single individual can't be the ancestor of a very large population.

The most heretical of the teachings of creationists,is that evolution would do away with the fall in the garden and mans sin nature.

 

[JackRT]

No, you've been misled about that. There's no reason why a single individual can't be the ancestor of a very large population.

Yes, DNA studies indicate that there is a "mitochondrial Eve" to whom all living humans can trace their matrilineal ancestry in an unbroken line. She lived in East Africa about 200,000 YBP. This doesn't mean that she was the first woman just that all matrilineal lineages from other earlier women eventually died out before modern times.

 

[-57]

Because they are different things. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. It doesn't teach science.

The only people who say christians present the bible as a science book are atheist and Evos. For some reason they thinks it's a smart thing to say....what I can say is that when the bible enters into a "scientific area" it's always right.

Neither are mountains shouting praises. Figurative language isn't wrong, it's just wrong to try to interpret it as literal history.

Thing is Genesis isn't written in figurative sense.
If God used evolution e would have said....something like..."from the animals I created man." But as you very well know, He didn't.
From your argument I couls also say the resurrection of Christ is figurative as we all know on day 3 you don't rise from the dead.

No, you've been misled about that. There's no reason why a single individual can't be the ancestor of a very large population.

In life..yeah, but, you know the bible doesn't teach that concerning the beginning of the human race.
If that were true then there would still be some of them existing today...with an unfallen nature. In fact you still can't explain who, when,where, how and why mankind fell.....but you do know the bible tells us...and you have rejected it.

The most heretical of the teachings of creationists,is that evolution would do away with the fall in the garden and mans sin nature.

Why would it not? The thing is you can't even explain the fall and mans sin nature using evolutionary concepts...you just can't do it.

 

[-57]

Yes, DNA studies indicate that there is a "miktochondrial Eve" to whom all living humans can trace their matrilineal ancestry. She lived in East Africa about 200,000 YBP. This doesn't mean that she was the first woman just that all matrilineal lineages from other earlier women eventually died out before modern times.

And the bible the Christians believe says that's wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

The only people who say christians present the bible as a science book are atheist and Evos.

No one said Christians did. I pointed out that creationists do.

For some reason they thinks it's a smart thing to say....what I can say is that when the bible enters into a "scientific area" it's always right.

Like where it says pi is equal to 3?

Thing is Genesis isn't written in figurative sense.

As you learned earlier, the text itself says that it's figurative.

If God used evolution e would have said....something like..."from the animals I created man."

Sorry, you don't speak for God. So your opinion isn't worth very much.

From your argument I couls also say the resurrection of Christ is figurative

Since it is presented as a literal history in the Bible, you're wrong about that, too.

as we all know on day 3 you don't rise from the dead.

So your claim is that miracles never happen? How so?

No, you've been misled about that. There's no reason why a single individual can't be the ancestor of a very large population.

In life..yeah, but, you know the bible doesn't teach that concerning the beginning of the human race.

Actually, it does. It says Eve is the mother of all of us. Part of the problem is you either haven't read the Bible, or you don't read it very carefully.

If that were true then there would still be some of them existing today...with an unfallen nature.

Don't see how. Maybe you need to put your thoughts together and show us how you came to that conclusion.

In fact you still can't explain who, when,where, how and why mankind fell.....

I already showed you. Did you forget this quickly?

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.


398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279


399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

but you do know the bible tells us this, even though you have rejected it.

 

[JackRT]

Yes, DNA studies indicate that there is a "mitochondrial Eve" to whom all living humans can trace their matrilineal ancestry in an unbroken line. She lived in East Africa about 200,000 YBP. This doesn't mean that she was the first woman just that all matrilineal lineages from other earlier women eventually died out before modern times.