Jesus' ape-like ancesters.

gluadys · Nov 1, 2004

GodSaves said:
So at what point did God create in His image? Was God continually creating until He go it right?

God always gets it right. Why would one suppose that any of the many species that live and have lived on earth was a mistake?

gluadys · Nov 1, 2004

TwinCrier said:
So neanderthal man is actually not a man, but an animal, is that correct?

Whether or not neanderthal man had a soul, he was of the same genus as ourselves. Physically, scientifically, he was as human as you and I. There is also evidence of neanderthal culture, so we might also accord him human emotions and thought processes.

One thing I would ask is, can a creature without a soul have a culture?

PaladinValer · Nov 1, 2004

1. Evolution never stated that humanity came from apes
2. Evolution never said that whole species evolve into a new species; it is possible for only some to and not the entire species, depending on the environment.

When will YECs get that?

gluadys · Nov 2, 2004

InnerPhyre said:
Adam was not an ape. He was a human. By the time God made Adam, mankind had evolved from apes already. Adam was the first human to have a soul. that's what it means to be made in God's image. God is pure spirit. He has no arms, legs, feet, etc. The soul that He gave us is His image.

Here again, we need to distinguish between biological and spiritual reality. If one is defining humans spiritually as "ape-like primates with a soul" then to say Adam was human and not an ape (though physically ape-like) is true.

But biologically Adam was an ape and so are we all.

This is where it pays to learn a little scientific terminology. Because without it, we tend to fall into the assumption that every common, every-day name for a group of creatures refers to a species. But most of the time it does not. Most of the time it refers to a much wider group.

Take the following terms:

platypus (as in "duck-billed") This does refer to a single species. There is only one living species of platypus.

chimpanzee This refers to a genus of two species.

rhinoceros This refers to a family of three species, one of which is in a separate genus from the other two.

bear This refers to a larger family of a dozen or so species in several genera

bat This refers to a whole order of mammals. There are approximately a thousand different species of bats.

"ape" is an umbrella term rather like "bear". It is generally used in science to refer to two families, the gibbons and the "anthropoid apes" (i.e. "human-like" apes).

The second of these groups includes four living genera: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. It also includes the fossil genus Australopithecus.

The scientific names are below.

Hominoidea (super-family)
Hominidae (family 6 living species as outlined below)
Gorilla (genus 1 living species)
Homo (genus 1 living species)
Pan (chimpanzees) (genus 2 living species)
Pongo (orangutans) (genus 2 living species)

Hylobatidae (gibbons) (family many living species)

So, physically, biologically, we are apes. Spiritually, of course, it's another story.

The point is that we cannot determine spiritual nature from biological characteristics.

theFijian · Nov 2, 2004

GodSaves said:
I think mhess13 was saying this is what disgusts him:

1. Jesus evolved from an ape.
2. He cannot associate God not far removed from being an ape.

1. Jesus did not evolve from an ape. Populations evolve, individuals do not.
2. That's his problem not God's.

Or he could just answer for himself.

United · Nov 2, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Well, if you believe the Genesis account it would appear that God made a man from the dust of the Earth. As for what aspect of His image God created us, I would say esthetically. The bible often mentions God having hands, I presume with opposing thumbs, and having eyes and a mouth, I presume with lips. Certainly we aren't made with His powers, authority or good judgment. Are you saying animals do not have a soul or cannot love?

Hi TwinCrier,

I think most christians often picture God in human form, and indeed Jesus was in a human body. But to suggest that is the only form is overly simplistic & confining. He appeared to Moses in (or as) a burning bush and a cloud. Jesus is often depicted as the lamb. He is the amighty God - what relevance is a physical form? I stand by my previous comment - God is not interested in physical traits. He is interested in mans heart.

On your first point I am undecided. Some TE's who believe in a literal adam consider "dust" to mean a dead pre-human who God brought to life and gave a soul and spirit (refer to verse where God tells Adam "...to dust you will return").

Micaiah · Nov 2, 2004

United said:
Can you answer this question - what separates man from apes in Gods eyes? Is it physical differences? God has no interest in physical traits. He has given us a soul and spirit and (as far as I am aware) all YEC's, OEC's and TE's believe this to be the key difference between us and animals. All else is irrelevant.

Romans 6

Death in Adam, Life in Christ
(1) 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Scripture plainly teaches that death entered into man's world as a result of the sin of disobedience. That death was both physical and spiritual. Christ removed the fear of death through His death and resurrection. He died physically, and conquored the grave. While Christians are in the world, they are subject to the decaying influences that have attacked creation since the fall. One day, believers, and this worl will be completely liberated from those influences.

Those who promote the notion that God in some way used evolution as part of creation, or the progressive creationists such as Hugh Ross who assert that there was death prior to the fall, contradict the plain teaching of Scripture on this matter.

Micaiah · Nov 2, 2004

Romans 8

From Suffering to Glory
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In this passage, Paul talks about creation being subject to futility. It suffered the effects of the curse of God given at the fall. It became subject to the decaying influences of sin. One day, creation, like those who are saved, will be delivered from that corruption. It is pictured here as suffering the labour pains of birth as it waits to be transformed. Scripture plainly teaches that the heavens and earth will one day pass away, and a new heaven and earth will take its place.

2 Peter 3

13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

Revelations 21

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Yet another prophetic reference to the state of the new created order.

Isaiah 11

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling [1] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.

10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. 11 In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, [2] from Cush, [3] from Elam, from Babylonia, [4] from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

If the pre-fall creation had death, sickness, and suffering, much the same as we presently experience, they why does it need to be renewed. In what way does it need to change if what we have now is equivalent to what God pronounced as good prior to the fall.

I'd be interested to hear the TE's version of how creation after the curse was different to the pre-curse creation.

The mesage of Scripture is plain and clear. God created everything good. Man sinned and he and creation have suffered the effects of that sin since the fall. Christ overcame death and sin through the crucifixion, thus paving the way to restoration of fallen humanity and the world. One day all things will be made new, and we will once again enjoy God's creation as He originally intended.

That will be a wonderful day. Amen?

Micaiah · Nov 2, 2004

Here is the eye witness account given by God of the creation of man. There is not even a hint that God used the process of evolution, or in any way created man from another lower form of human.

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 2
7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [9] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [10] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Man alone was created in the image of God. Males were created first from the dust of the ground. Again no hint here of evolution from a sub species. That is made up by those who claim that their interpretation of physical evidence contradicts historical account of origins given in the Scriptures.

The TE's give more credence to their interpretation of the evidence than the inspired Scriptures. They need to read these kinds of meanings into the text and claim it is authentic to preserve some semblence of respectibility. You wonder why they bother, and who they really think they are fooling. Only themselves.

Christ descended from the man Adam. As Scripture records, Adam was the son of God, and Christ a descendent of Adam, not an ape.

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
26the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
28the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
30the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
32the son of David, the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[4] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[5]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
34the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
36the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
38the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Claiming Christ was a descendent of an ape, or that man descended from an ape for that matter, is unscriptural and degrading.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Nov 2, 2004

Micaiah said:
Claiming Christ was a descendent of an ape, or man for that matter is unscriptural and degrading.

You sure about that? Claiming that Christ was a descendant of a man is unscriptural?

Really sure?

Like, really, really, sure - like the gnostics and the Docetic heretics were?

Just interested.

Micaiah · Nov 2, 2004

Karl,

Thanks. The sentence did not read as intended, and has been corrected.

TwinCrier · Nov 2, 2004

Vance said:
Um, no. Again, that bad habit of misrepresenting what I am saying.

I never said all interpretations are correct in leading one properly. It does matter what God said, and there IS a correct interpretation. What I said is that it doesn't matter at all how and when God breathed life into Man (which is why God does not specify exactly how or when in scientific or historical terms). That was very clear from my post, but you are choosing purposefully to misrepresent what I am saying. Again.

There are no scientific terms to discribe what He did. But He didn't keep us in the dark about it at all. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Nov 2, 2004

TwinCrier said:
There are no scientific terms to discribe what He did. But He didn't keep us in the dark about it at all. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And evolution tells us how God formed that man of the dust of the ground. It really fits together quite nicely.

herev · Nov 2, 2004

plain, plainly, plain

words used often in attacks on Theistic Evolution in describing scriptural texts
I've come to the conclusion that plain is in the eye of the beholder

I believe that with this understanding, Micaiah and I will agree on nearly everything. Blessed be the peacemakers!

gluadys · Nov 2, 2004

Micaiah said:
I'd be interested to hear the TE's version of how creation after the curse was different to the pre-curse creation.

It was subjected to the presence of a sinful humanity which strayed away from the creation mandate to care for the earth and its inhabitants and instead treated it as a commodity to be accumulated, fought over, exploited, traded, used greedily, experimented with and polluted with no thought for the impact on the eco-system. So we have animals hunted to extinction, land deforested and turned into desert, water sources poisoned, habitats destroyed, the sixth great extinction of plant and animal life occurring in our generation, and the race continues in the patenting of genes---the next field of exploitative treatment of nature.

Yes, I think the earth indeed feels the curse of our sin since the fall.

The mesage of Scripture is plain and clear. God created everything good. Man sinned and he and creation have suffered the effects of that sin since the fall. Christ overcame death and sin through the crucifixion, thus paving the way to restoration of fallen humanity and the world. One day all things will be made new, and we will once again enjoy God's creation as He originally intended.

That will be a wonderful day. Amen?

Amen!!

Vance · Nov 3, 2004

You know, I was just listening to the 22nd lecture in a college series on archealogy and it was on the neolithic revolution, with the major shift from almost exclusive hunter/gatherer societies to agricultural/herder societies (with some exceptions, obviously). The big question for the experts in this period is why!? Why make this transition? The evidence is that the change was to MUCH harder work, much less free time, a much more limited diet, and much poorer health overall. The neolithic hunter/gatherer cultures were healthier, lived longer and were much taller. In fact, we have not YET reached average heights equivalent to those early cultures. They had MUCH less disease and no signs of famine or significant starvation and had much more free time to enjoy themselves. The hunting and gathering life was simply a much more comfortable existence before transitioning to a fixed, agricultural and herding life.

As the professor said, once Man became tied to the manipulation of flora and fauna for survival, we became slaves to that lifestyle, and we have never been free since.

Now, this just occurred to me, and it would take some thinking out, but is it just a coincidence that Cain and Abel were described as a farmer and a herder? Maybe our notions of "paradise" need to be adjusted a little bit.

Micaiah · Nov 3, 2004

I had a chat with a fellow at work today. He has been asking questions for a while and is very interested in discussing Christianity. He said one the major difficulties he faces is understanding how a good God would allows all the suffering we see in the world today.

As a Christian who believes the plain teaching of Genesis, ie the historical account. I was able to speak of the fall, how man disobeyed God, sin entered the world, and death through sin. I reassured Him that no, God's creation was very good. It was free from sin, sickness, suffering, and death, and that those things resulted from man choosing to disobey God's clear and simple instructions.

I noticed reading the AIG site tonight, that they have a good link that discusses this issue in detail.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp

One of the horrific implications of TE and progressive theology is to portray God as the author of suffering, sickness, and death. That is a lie from satan. It is easy to understand why an enquirer would question the goodness of a god responsible for such a creation. This teaching undermines the integrity of God's character, and creates a stumbling block for those seeking God.

Do we need another reason to reject origins theology that claim suffering and death existed before the fall.

Ben_Hur · Nov 3, 2004

Micaiah said:
I had a chat with a fellow at work today. He has been asking questions for a while and is very interested in discussing Christianity. He said one the major difficulties he faces is understanding how a good God would allows all the suffering we see in the world today.

As a Christian who believes the plain teaching of Genesis, ie the historical account. I was able to speak of the fall, how man disobeyed God, sin entered the world, and death through sin. I reassured Him that no, God's creation was very good. It was free from sin, sickness, suffering, and death, and that those things resulted from man choosing to disobey God's clear and simple instructions.

I noticed reading the AIG site tonight, that they have a good link that discusses this issue in detail.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp

One of the horrific implications of TE and progressive theology is to portray God as the author of suffering, sickness, and death. That is a lie from satan. It is easy to understand why an enquirer would question the goodness of a god responsible for such a creation. This teaching undermines the integrity of God's character, and creates a stumbling block for those seeking God.

Do we need another reason to reject origins theology that claim suffering and death existed before the fall.

This certainly presents a difficulty. But I believe the answer lies in the fact that we humans have our OWN definition of what is GOOD and what is NOT good. For example, it is GOOD for the lion to have food. Perhaps it is also GOOD for the fawn to be the provider of food to the lion? Who are we to speak for the fawn?

We don't think of it as being good for people to die. But it is certainly good that God has provided a means for us to live.

I don't think we, as mere humans, can comprehend true good from true bad. You need to be able to see the future in order to determine true good; that is, the death of someone or something may be a good thing when viewed back on from the future.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Nov 3, 2004

I would have thought it equally a stumbling block to imagine that for Adam's sin, God punished the whole of creation, all generations yet unborn, with disease, predation, sickness, every kind of evil, and death.

Vance · Nov 3, 2004

But we have been over the whole "death and suffering before the Fall" issue already. I even showed how the Fall could NOT have brought physical death, since that would actually invalidate Jesus' work here on earth!

Jesus' ape-like ancesters.

Legend

Legend

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Legend

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Senior Veteran

CL--you are missed!

Legend

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Me at the Races...

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency