• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Pre-Adamite Doctrine, History and Teaching

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by mark kennedy, May 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Having written my final post in my debate with Papias I was browsing the forum and found the Serpent's Seed thread. This strange doctrine is based on the idea that Cain was not a son of Adam but rather the 'seed' of the Serpent (aka Satan). I was surprised to learn that this heretical doctrine had a pretty long history.

    One of the issues with Papias was polygenism, something I accused him of early and often. The primary issue here is whether or not Adam had contemporaries (human or hominid) and most importantly, whether or not Adam and Eve are the first parents of us all as the Scriptures teach. Papias denied that he taught or believed in polygenism, there is one among teaches something very similar, something called Preadamism, a belief that humans existed before Adam.

    I have no idea where this thread is going but Adam of the Genesis account in Genesis 2 is clearly the first parent of humanity, father of us all.

    Man 'Adam' - H120 אדם 'âdâm aw-dawm' From H119; ruddy, Strong's Dictionary)

    A. Nouns.
    'adam (H120), "man; mankind; people; someone (indefinite); Adam (the first man)."...This noun is related to the verb 'adom, "to be red," and therefore probably relates to the original ruddiness of human skin. The noun connotes "man" as the creature created in God's image, the crown of all creation. In its first appearance 'adam is used for mankind, or generic man: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Gen.1:26). In Gen.2:7 the word refers to the first "man," Adam: "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." (Vines Dictionary)​

    I have done a little reading on the subject and even the Scofield Study Bible has a reference to a preadamite race, it would seem to be connected to the Gap Theory.

    The view that there were pre-adamites has historically been linked to racism. Many contemporary proponents of this view are non-racist like Hugh Ross, an Old Earth Creationist and evolutionist. I'm going to add a few links for future reference:


    Serpent's Seed by Wikipedia
    Pre-Adamite by Wikipedia
    Hugh Ross, CMI article by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

    My position is simply this, Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib. All humans are descendants from these two and the link in the genealogy of Luke and discussion of the Pauline discussion of original sin (Romans 5:12; 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15:21) makes a pre-adamite race untenable for me as an evangelical.

    With that I will post this brief summary of the topic and see where it goes.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Well-Known Member

    +99
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    Polygenism is the theistic theory that God created the races seperately. Research3 supports this theory (or to be more accurate, he believes that caucasians were created ex nihilo by God while non-caucasian races evolved from earlier hominids).
    The evolutionist equivalent of this known as 'multiregional theory', which states that homo erectus evolved into different races. Today this is generally considered bunk and very few evolutionalists endorse this theory. All the races living today are members of homo sapiens.

    Papias himself believes in a literal Adam and Eve. To him these were the first hominids were where given a soul and as such can be seen as the first true humans, and all humans living today are descended from them. My guess would be that he doesn't believe in either polygenism or multiregional theory.

    On a more personal note, I would much rather see you lock horns with Research3 than Papias Mark. ;)
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
  3. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I don't know that Polygenism requires separate creation, only that Adam had true human ancestors and/or contemporaries. As far as the rest of it, I'll wait and see what kind of a response I get before jumping to any conclusions.

    He doesn't, he simply believes that Adam was the first ex nihilo created human soul, his body coming from a lineage of apes. In some ways it's perfectly consistent with RCC doctrine in other ways it needs some work. Papias maintains the historical Adam, original sin and most of the other requisite RCC doctrines. I think he failed to reconcile TOE with RCC and Biblical doctrine but that is my estimation. I certainly don't consider him to be harboring heretical notions.

    I expect I will if this doctrine turns out to be as far gone as it appears. At least Papias had a doctrinal foundation to stand on, this one seems to float in thin air.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  4. Ishraqiyun

    Ishraqiyun Fanning the Divine Spark

    +144
    Single
    US-Others
    There are some early Christians who said that the Primal Man, the God called "Man", existed before the creation of the earthly psychic Adam. Earthly man was then created by the demiurge as a prison / tomb to bind the Spirit. I wonder if Papius knew about that?
     
  5. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Well-Known Member

    +99
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    According to thefreedictionary.com polgenism is "the theory that all human races descended from two or more ancestral types".

    Aside from Research3 I have only ever come across a Christian polygenist once before, a YEC from the 19th century. He too argued that Caucasians were descended Adam and Eve while people from other races were descended from the animals created on the 6th day (hence more than one creation of man). He also examined the skeletons of Caucasians and Negroes and concluded black people were more anatomically similar to chimps than they were to white people.

    Possibly but I'm not sure, I haven't discussed it with him much.
    To clarify, are you asking if Adam lived alongside other hominids, then who were the offspring of these hominids?

    Despite not being a creationist myself I'm glad to see one argue against his nonsense.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
  6. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    That sounds like gnosticism to me, I doubt very seriously Papias is aware of it and pretty sure he would not approve.
     
  7. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    That's it in a nutshell, this is the source material Papias and I were working from:

    37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. (Humani Generis. Pope Pius XII's Encyclical of 1950)​

    Hugh Ross advocates a non-racist version of this doctrine but it is largely and historically a racist idea. It has been used by evolutionists and creationists alike at both ends of the origins spectrum. It is not a Biblical view in my estimation and clearly in conflict with the requisite Scriptures. For both scientific and Biblical reasons I have firmly concluded that there is not such thing as race in the sense you just described.

    Respond to the topic at hand as you see fit. Papias and I have had our debate and I'm just waiting on his last rebuttal. The only reason I brought it up is because the issue of Preadamites seems related and the topic seemed an interesting supplemental discussion.

    I''m actually disturbed to find it in the creationist subforum. I had no idea that creationists believed such things. I know that Gap Theory and various kinds of Catastropheism is still being circulated but the racist version is something I would hope was largely absent in creationist thought.

    I know Henry Morris had some vaguely racist ideas concerning Noah's sons but this is the first time I've actually encountered a poster who systematically teaches and defends this doctrine.
     
  8. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Well-Known Member

    +99
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    Probably because race is not as distinctive as species.

    Apparenty at some point in history there were many species of hominids living at same time. You know a while ago I made a thread about neanderthals and other hominids, and my own personal guess is that if Adam was a literal person he might have been a member of homo heidelbergensis. This is the only way I could reconcile the fact that caucasians and asians have neanderthal genes.

    But I digress.
     
  9. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    Books and links -

    Tracing Our White Ancestors: Were They Descendants of Apes or of Adam (1934) Later reprinted as Tracing Our Ancestors.

    Tracing Our Ancestors - Frederick Haberman

    Adam and the Adamite (1872)
    The builders of Babel (1874)
    by Dominick McCausland

    Dominick McCausland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The pre-Adamite, or, Who tempted Eve? : Scripture and science in unison as respects the antiquity of man (1875)

    The pre-Adamite, or, Who tempted Eve? : Scripture and science in unison as respects the antiquity of man : Lester, A. Hoyle : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

    Alexander Winchell's 'Pre-adamites':

    Alexander Winchell - Pre-Adamites

    Articles:
    From Cain To Khazaria | anglo-saxonisrael.com
    Verboten
    Adam was not the First Man

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Ishraqiyun

    Ishraqiyun Fanning the Divine Spark

    +144
    Single
    US-Others
    I like the bird headed race. Is that a hawk or an Ibis it's hard to see.
     
  11. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    Covenant Publishing sell a wall chart which traces Adam's ancestry through to the Anglo-Saxon race.

    It's only £2.50

    Covenant Publishing Ltd

    Chart of the Royal Line from Adam to King David and through to Queen Elizabeth II, showing the two houses of Israel.

    [​IMG]

    Middle from my wall -

    [​IMG]


    Queen Victoria:Heir to King David's Royal Throne

    Dates are from Masoretic, I prefer Septuagint.

    ADAM TO VICTORIA
    Generations

    1Adam, b c 4000, 3070, Eve.2
    Seth, b c 3870, 2978​

    3Enos, b c 3765, 28604Cainan, b c 3675, 27655Mahalaleel, b c 3605, 27106Jared, b c 3540, 25787Enoch, b c 3378, 30138Methusaleh, b c 3313, 23449Lamech, b c 3126, 234410Noah, b c 2944, 2006, Naamah11Shem, b c 2442, 215812Arphaxad, b c 2342, 190413Salah, b c 2307, 212614Heber, b c 2277, 218715Peleg, b c 2243, 200416Reu, b c 2213, 202617Scrug, b c 2181, 204918Nahor, b c 2052, 200319Terah, b c 2122, 2083, Amtheta20Abraham, b c 1992, 1817, Sarah21Isaac, b c 1896, 1716, Rebekah22Jacob, b c 1837, 1690, Leah23Judah, b c 1753, Tamar24Hezron25Armn26Aminadab,27Naashon28Salmon29Boaz, b c 1312, Ruth30Obed31Jesse

    KINGS OF ISRAEL
    32K David, b c 1085, 1015, Bathsheba33K Solomon, b c 1003, 975 Naamah34K Rehoboam, b c 1016, d 958, Maacah35K Abijam, b c 958, 95536K Asa, b c 95 5, 914, Azubah37K Jehosaphat, b c 914, 88938K Jehoram, b c 889, 885, Athaliah39K Ahaziah, b c 906, 884; Zibiah40K Joash, b c 885, 839, Jehoaddan41K Amaziah, b c 864, d 810, Jecholiah42K Uzziah, b c 826, d 758, Jerushah43K Jotham, b c 783, d 74244K Ahaz, b c 787, d 726, Abi45K Hezekiah, b c 75 I, d 698, Hephzibah46K Manasseh, b c 7 10, d 643, Meshullemeth47K Amos, b c 621, d 641, Jedidah48K Josiah, b c 649, d 610, Hamutal49K Zedekiah, b c 578, 599

    KINGS OF IRELAND
    50K Heremon, b b c 580, Tea Tephi51K Irail, Foidh reigned 10 years52K Ethraill, reigned 20 years53Follain54K Tighennas, reigned 50 years55Eanbotha56Smiorguil57K Fiachadh Labhraine, reigned 24 years58K Aongus Ollmuchaidh, reigned 21 years59Maoin60K Rogheachta, reigned 25 years61Dein62K Siorna Saoghalach, reigned 21 years63Oholla Olchaoin64K Giallchadh, reigned 9 years65K Aodhain Glas, reigned 22 years66K Simeon Breac, reigned 6 years67K Muireadach Bolgrach, reigned 4 years68K Fiachadh Tolgrach, reigned 7 years69K Duach Laidrach, reigned 10 years70Eochaidh Buaigollorg71K Ugaine More the Great, reigned 30 years72K Cobhthach Coalbreag, reigned 30 years73Meilage74K Jaran Gleofathach, reigned 7 years75K Coula Cruaidh Cealgach, reigned 4 years76K Oiliolla Caisfhiachach, reigned 25 years77K Eochaidh Foltleathan, reigned 11 years78K Aongus Tuirmheach Teamharch, reigned 30 years79K Eana Aighneach, reigned 28 years80Labhra Suire81Blathucta82Eassamhuin Eamhua83Roighnein Ruadh84Finlogha85Fian86K Eodchaidh Feidhlioch, reigned 12 years87Fineamhuas88Lughaidh Raidhdearg89K Criomthan Niadhnar, reigned 16 years90Fearaidhach Fion-Feachtnuigh91K Fiachadh Fionoluidh, reigned 20 years92K Tuathal Teachtmar, reigned 30 years93K Coun Ceadchathach, reigned 20 years94K Arb Aonflier, reigned 30 years95K Cormae Usada, reigned 40 years96K Caibre Liffeachair, reigned 27 years97K Fiachadh Sreabthuine, reigned 30 years98K Muireadhach Tireach, reigned 30 years99K Eoachaidh Moigmeodhin, reigned 7 years100K Niall of the Nine Hostages101Eogan102K Muireadhach103Earca

    KINGS OF ARGYLESHIRE

    104
    K Feargus More, a d 437​


    105
    K Dongard, d 457​


    106
    K Conran, d 535​


    107
    K Aidan, d 604​


    108
    K Eugene IV, d 622​


    109
    K Donald IV, d 650​


    110
    Dongard​


    111
    K Eugene V., d 692​


    112
    Findan​


    113
    K Eugene VII, d a d 721, Spondau.​


    114
    K Etfinus, d a d 761, Fergina​


    115
    K Achaius, d a d 819, Fergusia​



    SOVEREIGNS OF SCOTLAND
    116K Alpin, d 834117K Kenneth II, d 854118K Constantin II, d 874119K Donald VI, d 903120K Malcolm I, d 958121K Kenneth III, d 994122K Malcolm II, d 1033123Beatrix m. Thane Albanach124K Duncan I, d 1040125K Malcolm III Canmore, d 1055,1093, Margaret of England126K David I, d 1153, Maud of Northumberland127Prince Henry, d 1153, Adama of Surry128Earl David, d 1219, Maud of Chester129Isabel m Robert Bruce III130Robert Bruce IV m Isabel of Gloucester131Robert Bruce V m Martha of Carriok132K Robert I. Bruce, d 1306,1329, Mary of Burke133Margary Bruce m Walter Stewart III134K Robert II, d 1390, Euphonia of Ross, d 1376135K Robert II, d 1460, Arabella Drummond, d 1401136K James I, d 1424, 1437, Joan Beaufort137K James I, d 1406, Margaret of Gueldres, d 1463138K James III,d 148 8, Margaret of Denmark, d 1484139K James IV, d 1543, Margaret of England, d 1539140K James V,d 1542, Mary of Lorraine, d 1560141Q Mary, d 1587, Lord Henry Darnley

    SOVEREIGNS OF GREAT BRITAIN
    142K James VI and I, d 1603, 1625, Anne of Denmark143Princess Elizabeth, 1596, 1613, K Frederick of Bohemia144Princess Sophia m Duke Ernest of Brunswick145K George I, 1698, 1727, Sophia Dorothea Zelle, 1667, 1726146K George II., 1727, 1760, Princess Caroline of Anspach, 1683, 1737147Prince Frederick of Wales, 1707, 1751, Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, 1744, 1818148K George III, 1760, 1820, Princess Sophia of Mecklenberg Strelitz149Duke Edward of Kent, 1767, 1820, Princess Victoria of Leinengen150Queen Victoria, b 1819, cr 1838, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg.

    -- Main Point - Not everyone descends from Adam.
     
  12. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    You had me right up till Zedekiah, don't you think you left someone pretty important out of your genealogy? The New Testament includes a couple of genealogies that seem to indicate Jesus Christ is the son of David, seed of the woman, seed of Abraham and eternal Son of God.

    How does Jesus Christ fit into your charts?
     
  13. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    Tea Tephi was Zedekiah's daughter. She appears in Irish mythology.

    Zedekiah's male successors were all put to the sword by the Babylonians, however Zedekiah's daughter(s) lived to continue the Davidic bloodline (see Jeremiah 43: 6).

    As a biological descendant of the Davidic Royal House (through Joseph and Mary) however only during the millenial reign will Jesus rule over this house as king having re-unified the House of Israel with Judah. My entire taking on scripture and prophecy is Two House Theology based.
     
  14. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    [​IMG]

    ABOVE LIMITED ETHNOGRAPHY OF GENESIS

    One would have to ask the YEC's or other Christians:

    *If everyone descended from Adam, how did the races originate?
    *If the flood was global, where did the races come from?

    --- Please remember the earliest artwork and written documentation of the different races dates from c. 2000 BC, ancient egypt.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    YEC's date the flood between 2348 - 2200 BC.

    How on earth do you get all racial types in only 200 or so years?

    Answer: YEC's ironically embrace macroevolution (e.g. Ken Ham) to explain the sudden origin of the different races in only a few hundred years.:doh:
     
  15. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Well-Known Member

    +99
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    Several mistakes made here -

    First mistake: A reliable source needed. A quick search for this on Google links only to British-Israelism sites. Interestingly in 2001 the British Israelism World Foundation site wrote they don't think the Tea-tephi of Irish legend ever existed.

    Second mistake: Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph.
    Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [Notice how he does NOT say Joseph was the father of Jesus.]

    Matthew 1:18: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

    Matthew 1:20: But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
    Luke 1:26-35: In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
    -NIV 1984​
    Third mistake: the diversion of races is not macroevolution, no more than the diversion of breeds of dogs is macroevolution. All the races are members of the same species, homo sapiens.
    Microevolution:
    Evolutionary change below the level of the species, resulting from relatively small genetic variations. Microevolution produces new strains of microorganisms, for example, or the rise of a new subspecies. The accumulation of many microevolutionary changes results in macroevolution.

    Macroevolution:
    Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species.
    -Thefreedictionary.com

    Fourth mistake: Calling Ken Ham an evolutionist.
     
  16. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    Luke 3: 23 -

    KJV

    ''And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli''

    NIV

    ''Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, (so it was thought), of Joseph, the son of Heli''

    Note the redaction (in brackets)added by Christians long after The Gosepl of Luke was written (note also the brackets are also not in the earliest Septuagint manuscripts). Jesus' biological father was Joseph. Hence Luke 3: 23 simply reads - ''Jesus the son of Joseph''.

    The redactors then added the line in brackets ''as was supposed, as was thought'' to infer Joseph was Jesus' father in law only, not biological father. However many modern translations have removed this redaction.

    The entire nativity story of Jesus was a fabrication.

    This fact is now known and accepted by many scholars who know that the 'authentic Gospel of Matthew' was in fact the Gospel of Hebrews - which does not mention the fabricated story of the virgin birth. On the contrary the earliest Christians who read the Gospel of Hebrews, knew that Jesus was a mortal man of a normal biological father.

    The virgin birth story crept in via pagan influence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_(mythology)

    Virgin Birth is traced and found in Buddhism, Hinduism, Egyptian, Babylonian and Roman mythology.

    Do you then believe the Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian Gods and also Buddha were also impregnated by the 'holy spirit' as well and concieved by virgin birth?
     
  17. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    That's not the definition of macroevolution. Please read a biology text book. Macro is defined as large scale phenotypic change (subsequently giving rise to a new formation of taxonomic group).

    Large scale phenotypic change has never been observed, certianly not in race. How many eskimos have you seen morph into australian aborigines? The fact is phenotype in race has never been observed to change, therefore it is quite mad like the YEC's to believe that after the flood in only two hundred or so years all the races evolved from Noah's original phenotype (which to most YEC's was a political correct ''middle-brown'' colour,;) read Ken Ham's One Blood).
     
  18. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    In your Bible -

    I Kings 9: 5; I Chron. 17: 12, II Chron, 17: 18 and II Sam. 7: 13.

    - Israel was to have a perpetual monarchy.

    II Sam. 7: 13 - ''I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever''.

    I Kings 9: 5 - ''then I will establish your royal dynasty over Israel forever as I promised your father David when I said, 'You will never fail to have an heir on the throne of Israel.'

    - The House of Israel today must have a monarchy ruling over them. That narrows it down heavily as many countries don't have monarchies.

    Also note - the so called Jews today have no monarchy.

    They are not the House of Israel and never were. Judah and Israel were two different peoples after the collapse of the united monarchy of Israel.

    Further marks of identity without doubt prove Britain are Israel. These are found listed throughout Jeremiah, Isaiah, Numbers etc.
     
  19. Notedstrangeperson

    Notedstrangeperson Well-Known Member

    +99
    Anglican
    In Relationship
    I've never quite understood why people try to defend Christianity by questioning the Bible. :confused:

    Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Your note on modern translation leaving out these redactions are also incorrect. Notice my quotes came from the New International Version 1984, one of the most recent editions. This same version also states:
    Luke 3:23: Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph.
    I'm not sure why you wrote that, considering I gave you the definition straight from the dictionary. I haven't found a definition which exclusively looks at phenotypic changes:

    - TalkOrigins.org: Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two.
    - Answers.com: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
    - Evolution 101: Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
    - Dictionary.reference.com: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.​

    Phenotypic changes by contrast are only observable changes (as a result of both genetics and environment). If macroevolution was nothing more than phenotypic changes bulldogs, poodles and dobermans would be different species.

    Remember you were looking at British ancestry, not Jewish ancestry. It was the British Israel World Foundation who denied the existance of an Irish Tea-tephi, not me.

    And don't forget Jesus was a Jew. According to your interpretation Jesus was not descended from King David.
     
  20. Research3

    Research3 Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier

    123
    +1
    Christian Seeker
    Biology, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, Diana W. Martin, Cengage Learning, 2005, pp.381-383 defines macroevolution as:

    ''large scale phenotypic change above the species level''

    - Large scale phenotypic change has never been observed.

    Nothing you say changes what empirical science is - and macroevolution isn't apart of science since its never been observed or tested. I know that frustrates you as an evolutionist - but welcome to reality.

    Jerry Coyne's book Why evolution is true, 2009, page 133:

    "Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see''

    Note that Coyne (a phd biologist and an atheist) admits macro is not observable and that macro is defined as large scale transforming i.e large scale phenotypic change.

    Never been observed or tested though. Not science.

    And you can look up the biology textbook i cited above from google. Its a university level biology book. Are you saying the phd biologists who believe in evolution themselves made a mistake?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...