It is very clear that evolution is in the bible

[pitabread]

No? I think you missed the point. If this Jesus believed every dot and cross in the Old Testament, how could it be wrong in any way, shape, or form?

Do you believe that life having evolved makes it 'wrong' though?

Nobody believed evolution was even a thing until less than a thousand years ago.. So why should we accept a doctrine that contradicts the belief system of the savior of the world?

Lots of knowledge has been acquired in the past 2000 years. Should knowledge acquisition have ended 2000 years ago?

I'm not sure what you are trying to advocate for here...

 

[ViaCrucis]

The book of Genesis was written unto man from the heavens.

2 Peter 3:8

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’—the word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) is speech not to be used in the literal sense.

One day in the heavens is like one thousand life times on earth. When God made earth from the heavens, days had pass for him but billions of years had past here.

The scripture in the bible is from Heavens time not ours.

In Genesis it is very clear how our existence came to pass by the word of God as well, before primitive man even knew the concept of evolution or how nature was formed by it. Proving that man did not write this from his own knowledge.

Except that the only thing the author of 2 Peter was saying is that time is irrelevant for God. Short periods of time for us, long periods of time for us--neither means anything to God who is beyond time.

Also, the Bible isn't magic, it was written by human beings to human beings and uses human language.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If it's not literal, then how can it be said that God was establishing a seven day model (six for work, one for rest) for the purpose of human observance?

Weeks are arbitrary units of time. Unlike days, months, or years weeks don't correspond to any particular phenomenon. A day is one rotation of the earth on its axis, a year is one revolution of the earth around the sun, and months have their origin as roughly corresponding to the lunar cycle. Weeks, on the other hand, are more arbitrary. Seven day cycles are old, but not universal, and originated in the ancient near east. As such, the ancient Hebrews also had a seven day cycle. In Judaism the seventh day--the Sabbath--is considered holy and is consecrated as a day of rest. The reason why Genesis 1 uses the seven day week as a framework is precisely because the author believed already in a seven day week and, as commanded in the Torah, regarded the seventh day a sacred day of rest.

The creation week is a framework, not an institution of a week cycle. It's the same sort of using contemporary information when speaking of old things that we see in a few other places in Genesis, such as Noah bringing seven of each clean animal on board the ark when the demarcation of clean and unclean had not yet been revealed through Moses and the Sinai Covenant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Valetic]

Do you believe that life having evolved makes it 'wrong' though?

Yes, evolution directly contradicts the first chapter of the bible.

Lots of knowledge has been acquired in the past 2000 years. Should knowledge acquisition have ended 2000 years ago?

I'm not sure what you are trying to advocate for here...

No but we shouldn't believe anything less than the truth.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, evolution directly contradicts the first chapter of the bible.

Okay. I re-iterate my prior question: are you beliefs dependent on evolution being false?

No but we shouldn't believe anything less than the truth.

Does this include newly acquired knowledge that contradicts previously held beliefs?

 

[mark kennedy]

Weeks are arbitrary units of time. Unlike days, months, or years weeks don't correspond to any particular phenomenon. A day is one rotation of the earth on its axis, a year is one revolution of the earth around the sun, and months have their origin as roughly corresponding to the lunar cycle. Weeks, on the other hand, are more arbitrary. Seven day cycles are old, but not universal, and originated in the ancient near east. As such, the ancient Hebrews also had a seven day cycle. In Judaism the seventh day--the Sabbath--is considered holy and is consecrated as a day of rest. The reason why Genesis 1 uses the seven day week as a framework is precisely because the author believed already in a seven day week and, as commanded in the Torah, regarded the seventh day a sacred day of rest.

The creation week is a framework, not an institution of a week cycle. It's the same sort of using contemporary information when speaking of old things that we see in a few other places in Genesis, such as Noah bringing seven of each clean animal on board the ark when the demarcation of clean and unclean had not yet been revealed through Moses and the Sinai Covenant.

-CryptoLutheran

In Genesis day means a normal day, there is no serious question about that. Its commemorated in the commandment concerning the sabbath, and in Isaiah and confirmed in the New Testament. If you think there is room for interpretation here your not paying attention.

 

[royal priest]

The creation week is a framework, not an institution of a week cycle.

The command regarding the use of our time is founded on the pattern which God had established during the Creation:
Exodus 20:8-11,
"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

This tells us that what God did in Genesis 2:3 was established for mankind long before Moses.
Genesis 2:3,
"Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

 

[Valetic]

Okay. I re-iterate my prior question: are you beliefs dependent on evolution being false?

I'm definitely not a Christian because evolution is false. And I believe the creation story because I'm a Christian. End of story.

Does this include newly acquired knowledge that contradicts previously held beliefs?

The bible says "I the LORD do not change"

Anything that was believed that was not based on the word of God but of worldly knowledge instead isn't always guaranteed to stand the test of time.

 

[pitabread]

I'm definitely not a Christian because evolution is false. And I believe the creation story because I'm a Christian. End of story.

That's not what I'm asking, though. I'm asking if your beliefs are dependent on evolution being false.

In other words, if evolution is true, are your beliefs false?

Anything that was believed that was not based on the word of God but of worldly knowledge instead isn't always guaranteed to stand the test of time.

Wouldn't this include our understanding of the natural world? After all, that understanding has continually changed with acquisition of new knowledge throughout history.

For example, geocentrism was a long-held view of the solar system and people have used (and even continue to use) the Bible to support those views. But that was eventually replaced with a heliocentric view based on new observations of our universe. Is it acceptable to update our view of the solar system based on those newer observations even though it contradicts what some people believe about the word of God?

 

[Valetic]

That's not what I'm asking, though. I'm asking if your beliefs are dependent on evolution being false.

In other words, if evolution is true, are your beliefs false?

Probably because I don't see how evolution and creation can co exist unless evolution isn't macro evolution but is instead micro evolution as in adaption. But no I do not believe there were leaps between species through evolution. I believe that contradicts my creationist beliefs.

Wouldn't this include our understanding of the natural world?

We can only observe and hypothesize and test. We can determine some things have set standards in place such as the boiling point of water. The fact is that it's boiling point isn't 212 degrees Fahrenheit. It is if it's under the right pressure because temp and pressure have a relationship. The fact is the natural world has already been set in motion and has been in motion for some time now and certain things about it haven't changed..

 

[Sorn]

Probably because I don't see how evolution and creation can co exist

God could have used a creation miracle to get life going and then left it alone for evolution to shape it.
He could also have intervened at any time if he wanted life or a particular branch of it to go in a particular direction or for a particular species to appear.

 

[Valetic]

God could have used a creation miracle to get life going and then left it alone for evolution to shape it.
He could also have intervened at any time if he wanted life or a particular branch of it to go in a particular direction or for a particular species to appear.

Regardless that He could, as the God He is, that also contradicts what it says in Genesis. God would have had no need to keep speaking things into existence if He did it that way. He would have said 2 things. Let there be life. And let life evolve and be abundant on the earth.

 

[Sorn]

Regardless that He could, as the God He is, that also contradicts what it says in Genesis. God would have had no need to keep speaking things into existence if He did it that way. He would have said 2 things. Let there be life. And let life evolve and be abundant on the earth.

Well that depends om whether you think the Genesis record is a verbatim court transcript accurate record of what God said or perhaps a quick summary of the essential bits to get the story going.

Take the bit where God says 'Let us make one like us', was that it? there were no further words or discussion before the final decision?
We don't know of course but just saying that taken literally then God appears to be a very terse & sparse speaker, though he clearly isn't in many other parts of the bible.

 

[Sorn]

God would have had no need to keep speaking things into existence

True, but maybe he wanted to anyway. There was no need for him to create the universe and physical life either, but he just wanted to.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God could have used a creation miracle to get life going and then left it alone for evolution to shape it.
He could also have intervened at any time if he wanted life or a particular branch of it to go in a particular direction or for a particular species to appear.

This is directly contrary or opposed to what God Says in the Bible and in Spirit Understanding Revelation of the Bible.

 

[Valetic]

Well that depends om whether you think the Genesis record is a verbatim court transcript accurate record of what God said or perhaps a quick summary of the essential bits to get the story going.

Take the bit where God says 'Let us make one like us', was that it? there were no further words or discussion before the final decision?
We don't know of course but just saying that taken literally then God appears to be a very terse & sparse speaker, though he clearly isn't in many other parts of the bible.

We go by what it says, not what works best for us or what fits best with what society believes. Real Christians take a stand for this book, even to the death.

 

[Sorn]

My point was to show that evolution and creation could co-exist or both be true. Not saying that this is how it happened one way or the other though. Sometimes i think it was all just a short creation and sometimes i think maybe not.
There is still a lot of real world stuff that we don't understand and can challenge any of the various creation stories and theories of how life got going.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Except God's Word makes it impossible for evolution "THEORY" to be true,
and the
THEORY of evolution was used widely to separate children from the parents in Germany and other countries including lately the United States.
i.e. the goal and purpose of evolution is to prove God does not exist, as likewise those who keep coming up with new stories trying to fit evolution in with all the new findings every year that proves it is false , all those are trying to remove God from everyone.

My point was to show that evolution and creation could co-exist or both be true.

 

[Valetic]

My point was to show that evolution and creation could co-exist or both be true. Not saying that this is how it happened one way or the other though. Sometimes i think it was all just a short creation and sometimes i think maybe not.
There is still a lot of real world stuff that we don't understand and can challenge any of the various creation stories and theories of how life got going.

Does what evolutionists say about dinosaur bones sway your faith?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God's Word, the Bible, is not a story nor a theory.

All the challenges to God's Word fail.

There is still a lot of real world stuff that we don't understand and can challenge any of the various creation stories and theories of how life got going.