Theisitic Evolution

[Hoghead1]

I don't think, Percival, that will go well with the Genesis account. Accordingly, Adam did not come from parents, but from dust.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are forgetting, -57, that Genesis presents two contradictory creation accounts. I have explained all this and presented solid evidence to you before.

 

[Willtor]

I don't think, Percival, that will go well with the Genesis account. Accordingly, Adam did not come from parents, but from dust.

I don't think anybody contends that we didn't come from the dust. But there has always been the question of whether Adam had natural parents (the "bellybutton question").

 

[Hoghead1]

According to any fundamentalist I have ever known, Adam did not have any parents. He is assumed to be created fully formed.

 

[Willtor]

According to any fundamentalist I have ever known, Adam did not have any parents. He is assumed to be created fully formed.

Yeah, but fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomenon (~100 years). People have been wondering whether Adam had natural parents for a lot longer (since it was discovered that the Earth was old).

 

[Hoghead1]

Somewhere along the line, a myth got started that fundamentalism is only 100 or so years old and uniquely American. That is definitely not true. Fundamentalism is based on very traditional concepts well in place long before American fundamentalists came along.

 

[Willtor]

Somewhere along the line, a myth got started that fundamentalism is only 100 or so years old and uniquely American. That is definitely not true. Fundamentalism is based on very traditional concepts well in place long before American fundamentalists came along.

In general, the doctrines are older, but the movement is from the early 1900's. As relates to the current topic, most Christians throughout history have thought that Adam had no natural parents. But most Christians throughout history have not fit the present usual criteria for fundamentalism in some way or another. Paradoxically, some of the founders of the fundamentalist movement _did_ believe that Adam had natural parents.

 

[Hoghead1]

Interesting. Could you cite some sources that felt Adam had natural parents? It is true that not all Christians in the past were fundamentalists. Aquinas believed that the Garden of Eden denoted a whole society of individuals. The fall simply stripped them of their supernatural abilities. Augustine argue you couldn't interpret Genesis literally, etc. As I just mentioned, not all Christians held with the penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement. But I still thin that fundamentalism is very much rooted in the theology of the Reformation and is very traditional in that sense.

 

[Willtor]

Interesting. Could you cite some sources that felt Adam had natural parents? It is true that not all Christians in the past were fundamentalists. Aquinas believed that the Garden of Eden denoted a whole society of individuals. The fall simply stripped them of their supernatural abilities. Augustine argue you couldn't interpret Genesis literally, etc. As I just mentioned, not all Christians held with the penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement. But I still thin that fundamentalism is very much rooted in the theology of the Reformation and is very traditional in that sense.

This is a few different questions. To the one about people who thought Adam had natural parents, in Christianity, the idea was started by Isaac La Peyrere in 1665. His basis (and much of the subsequent support) involved the question of how Cain had managed to find a wife and found a city.

The second question of non-literal interpretations of Genesis, actually, usually identified Adam as the first man! St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who takes the garden account as figurative, talks about the first man as being "named Adam in Hebrew." This was common, I suspect, because how else could it have been but that there was a first man?

To the third question of the Reformation: I think the big connection that fundamentalism has with the Reformation is the sufficiency of Scripture (inerrancy is often seen as a corollary to this, though I don't remember reading the idea explicitly in Calvin's Institutes). But there are other things, like dispensationalism, that aren't really related to the reformers at all.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks, Mighty Willtor.

 

[Aman777]

Thanks, Mighty Willtor.

Do you think mighty Willtor can possibly tell us HOW to get to Heaven? Or will he disappear like you and Ahh did? Can you tell us now? You've had many days to study.

 

[Willtor]

Do you think mighty Willtor can possibly tell us HOW to get to Heaven? Or will he disappear like you and Ahh did? Can you tell us now? You've had many days to study.

I can tell you how to get to Heaven, but I'm not sure this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Aman777]

I can tell you how to get to Heaven, but I'm not sure this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Sure it does. Scripture tells us to try the spirits. 1Jo 4:1 It's a simple test which atheists, agnostics and phonies cannot answer. It separates the sheep from the goats and exposes those who would deceive us. Heb 4:12 Amen?

 

[Willtor]

Sure it does. Scripture tells us to try the spirits. 1Jo 4:1 It's a simple test which atheists, agnostics and phonies cannot answer. It separates the sheep from the goats and exposes those who would deceive us. Heb 4:12 Amen?

The topic of this thread is the historicity of Adam and Eve (and how to think about the Fall, if they were not historical), not how to go to Heaven. That's a question for a different sub-forum.

 

[Aman777]

The topic of this thread is the historicity of Adam and Eve (and how to think about the Fall, if they were not historical), not how to go to Heaven. That's a question for a different sub-forum.

Do you accept any explanation in violation of what we are told to do?

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Adam and Eve were the first Humans, made with a superior intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22 Until Noah, a direct descendant of Adam, came to our Planet, there were NO Humans here since prehistoric people did NOT descend from the ONLY man made with God's intelligence. Inheritance is the ONLY way to obtain a little bit of God's Supreme Intelligence since it CANNOT evolve as prehistoric people demonstrated for 99% of the time since they diverged from Apes.

IOW, Can ANYone explain How Adam's superior intelligence SUDDENLY appeared on Planet Earth 11k years ago? It changed prehistoric people into Humans, Gen 6:4 but Godless Evolutionists are ignorant of that Truth. Is it because the ToE is wrong? Of course it is. God bless all of you.

 

[Willtor]

Do you accept any explanation in violation of what we are told to do?

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Adam and Eve were the first Humans, made with a superior intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22 Until Noah, a direct descendant of Adam, came to our Planet, there were NO Humans here since prehistoric people did NOT descend from the ONLY man made with God's intelligence. Inheritance is the ONLY way to obtain a little bit of God's Supreme Intelligence since it CANNOT evolve as prehistoric people demonstrated for 99% of the time since they diverged from Apes.

IOW, Can ANYone explain How Adam's superior intelligence SUDDENLY appeared on Planet Earth 11k years ago? It changed prehistoric people into Humans, Gen 6:4 but Godless Evolutionists are ignorant of that Truth. Is it because the ToE is wrong? Of course it is. God bless all of you.

You think you've discovered some secret interpretation of the Bible, and suddenly it's a matter of Heaven or Hell. No.

 

[Aman777]

You think you've discovered some secret interpretation of the Bible, and suddenly it's a matter of Heaven or Hell. No.

Sorry, but I came to this site to discuss the differences between a theistic view of Scripture and what it actually says. Scripture tells us to be careful of listening to those who CLAIM to be Truthful and those who are really Truthful. I do this by comparing what God's Word actually says and what some religious view says it says. When I run into a discussion where others claim to know the Truth, but don't, I ask questions which only those who have been born again Spiritually in Christ can know the answers. I'm sorry if I irritated you. God Bless you

 

[BobRyan]

For those of you who hold to theistic evolution, what do you believe about Adam and Eve?

If you believe they are only mythological to explain human tendency to sin, then how do you reconcile verses such as Romans 5:12?

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

If there was no literal fall of humanity, then there would be no need for Christ to have come, no?

If you believe they are literal humans, do you believe that they were the first of the homo-sapiens or only the first two with a soul? I still can't reconcile the Fall of humanity if they were not the first two human beings...


DISCLAIMER: I believe in evolution, just can't find a suitable way to reconcile these.

Sadly there is no bridge between the religion of blind faith evolutionism and the religion of the Bible.

OK - what if, hypothetically, I called that first creature to conceive of deities, "Adam"? I don't have to put a finger on exactly when - I can say that whenever it happened, I'll call that person "Adam".

IF God punished all mankind - and Christ had to be tortured on the cross - because "some hominid bashing in his daily ration of monkey brains - happened upon a bad thought one day" - then the atheist's mocking of the gospel is amplified 1000 fold and it is all nonsense.

The idea that all mankind must burn in hell because of some dunderhead barely-able-to-imagine-deity-exists "Adam" ate an apple or "had a bad thought" or "Bashed in the monkey's head the wrong way" -- is the most cruel and unjust unGod-like action thinkable for dooming the entire planet. Which fits the TE paradigm perfectly!

TE makes a mockery of the Bible, of God, of the Gospel - and logic.

This is irrefutable.

And what does TE gain by such a horrific sacrifice? They claim they are gaining friendship with the atheist's "religion" of blind faith evolutionism.

James 4 says "friendship with the world is hostility toward God".

I believe the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Dear Papias, Thanks for admitting that TEs cannot support their theology Scripturally. God Bless you

What is more - there is no bridge for TE to the Bible as it reads or to the Gospel as it reads.

Notice that the NT text affirms "the very details" in the Bible that the TE POV insists are "most untrue".

Do you "believe in" the unscientific facts of the literal virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, literal bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ, the 2nd coming, the miracles of the NT... the prophetic statements in the NT where NT authors claim God speaks to people and they write what God said... and the literal 7 day creation week... and the literal world wide flood?

Pretty hard to do that and be TE.

 

[Willtor]

What is more - there is no bridge for TE to the Bible as it reads or to the Gospel as it reads.

Notice that the NT text affirms "the very details" in the Bible that the TE POV insists are "most untrue".

Do you "believe in" the unscientific facts of the literal virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, literal bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ, the 2nd coming, the miracles of the NT... the prophetic statements in the NT where NT authors claim God speaks to people and they write what God said... and the literal 7 day creation week... and the literal world wide flood?

Pretty hard to do that and be TE.

(emphasis mine)

I don't think you understand the TE point of view, so it's kind of strange to be commenting on it.