Where Did Humans Come From?

[BPPLEE]

Poofing a Y chromosome into an X is an unscriptural miracle. As I said, if you can imagine a miracle to cover every problem with you beliefs, than any story is equally believable.

Genesis requires miracles. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. What was holding the earth in place and how was there an evening and a morning?

 

[Andrewn]

They were the first two given living souls by God.

Humans are not the only creatures that have nefesh/soul. Review Gen 1:20, 21, 24,30.

nephesh chayyah - creation.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Humans are not the only creatures that have nefesh/soul. Review Gen 1:20, 21, 24,30.

nephesh chayyah - creation.com

Genesis seems to differentiate between the souls of animals and the souls that God gives to humans directly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Genesis requires miracles.

More to the point, if you can call in a miracle every time there's a problem with your interpretation, then anyone's story is equally likely.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, your Greek philosophy may be consisted with a "trial and error' creation by God, but it is completely inconsistent with the omnipotent God of the Bible.

Wow. You really need to take a harder look at Genesis - and Scripture as a whole.

The Bible asserts that God is omnipotent. I'll go with that. God has no need to tinker or experiment.

This looks like dishonest debate, accusing me of the very thing I repudiate.

Greeks saw gods as beings like us, just far more powerful. But they had limitations, unlike the God of the Bible. I believe the latter. You believe the former.

 

[JAL]

More to the point, if you can call in a miracle every time there's a problem with your interpretation, then anyone's story is equally likely.

True, but perhaps you're going to the opposite extreme - denying miracles altogether?

Any creative act is miraculous by definition since it is something other than Darwinism. Yes, we creationists do believe in creations/miracles. That doesn't automatically invalidate our interpretations. There needs to be some sense of balance here. Sometimes it feels like you're not really allowing for balance.

 

[JAL]

Greeks saw gods as beings like us, just far more powerful. But they had limitations, unlike the God of the Bible. I believe the latter. You believe the former.

I don't think you understand what I mean by Greek PHILOSOPHY. You're confusing it with Greek religion.

No limitations? Here's a simple question asked on the other thread: how many languages does an infinite God know?

If you try to tell me, "an infinite amount", my response is simple: "Incoherent stance, since infinity is not a specific number."

And that's only one of several objections raised against infinitude on the other thread.

And that's not even to mention the objections raised against the Greek philosophical beliefs.

If you're not referring to a finite God, you're not making any sense. The only reason you'd believe in an infinite God is 2,000 years indoctrination into Greek philosophy.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think you understand what I mean by Greek PHILOSOPHY. You're confusing it with Greek religion.

So did the Greeks. You're still stuck in the Greek philosophy of limited gods, rather than the Biblical notion of an omnipotent God.

No limitations? Here's a simple question asked on the other thread: how many languages does an infinite God know?

All of them.

If you try to tell me, "an infinite amount"...

I'd be falling into the same error you did.

And that's only one of several objections raised against infinitude on the other thread.

Gee, were they all that sophomoric?

If you're not referring to a finite God, you're not making any sense.

Sorry, Greek notions of the supernatural don't make much sense to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

True, but perhaps you're going to the opposite extreme - denying miracles altogether?

I'm pretty sure that dreaming up funny ideas for me, isn't going to work for you.

Any creative act is miraculous by definition since it is something other than Darwinism.

So Lamarckism is "miraculous?" You think art is miraculous? I don't think you've given this enough thought.

Yes, we creationists do believe in creations/miracles.

So do other Christians.

That doesn't automatically invalidate our interpretations.

I'm thinking that miracles shouldn't be all-purpose problem solvers.

 

[JAL]

So did the Greeks. You're still stuck in the Greek philosophy of limited gods, rather than the Biblical notion of an omnipotent God.

A Philosophy 101 course might help you out here.

All of them.

Incoherent. Next you'll tell me that an immutable God became man - oh but that's just a "sophomoric" objection, right?

Like I said, it's your prerogative to love contradictions and incoherence. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[FaithT]

Are you going to pretend that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally?

But if some things are literal and some are not, how do we know which to take literally?

 

[The Barbarian]

A Philosophy 101 course might help you out here.

Perhaps you were asleep in class? Did you really not know that Greek philosophers, when they thought of gods at all, imagined them to be limited and creatures themselves?

No limitations? Here's a simple question asked on the other thread: how many languages does an infinite God know?

All of them.

Incoherent.

Precise. Omnipotent, remember?

Next you'll tell me that an immutable God became man

And so He did.

If Jesus has a human nature, and if change is proper to humanity rather than divinity, then we can attribute change to Jesus’s person according to his human nature. Since Christ’s humanity has no identity or existence apart from the eternal Son uniting it to himself, we attribute the “becoming” of his humanity to the personal subject of the incarnation, the divine Son. So, the divine Son “becomes” not in his divine nature, but according to the coming-into-existence of his human nature.
Did the Incarnation Change God? Pondering the Great Mystery of Christmas

Like I said, it's your prerogative to love contradictions and incoherence.

And it's your prerogative to project your stuff on the rest of us. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[JAL]

Perhaps you were asleep in class? Did you really not know that Greek philosophers, when they thought of gods at all, imagined them to be limited and creatures themselves?

You can't seem to differentiate between Greek philosophy and Greek religion.

If Jesus has a human nature, and if change is proper to humanity rather than divinity, then we can attribute change to Jesus’s person according to his human nature. Since Christ’s humanity has no identity or existence apart from the eternal Son uniting it to himself, we attribute the “becoming” of his humanity to the personal subject of the incarnation, the divine Son. So, the divine Son “becomes” not in his divine nature, but according to the coming-into-existence of his human nature.
Did the Incarnation Change God? Pondering the Great Mystery of Christmas

You're really going to try to "explain" to me how an immutable God became man? You do realize, don't you, that even the mainstream theologians who support this claim admit it's humanly incomprehensible? They hold to it only because their faulty assumptions force them to do so. But listen to what they say about it. Let's start with Norm Geisler:

"The fact that one cannot explain how the two natures unite in one person without contradiction has nothing to do with the obvious fact that what happens when they do [unite] is clearly not a contradiction” (Norman L. Geisler, “Avoid… Contradictions” (1 Timothy 6:20): A Reply To John Dahms,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 22:1 (1979), p. 62).

He admits that, from the human standpoint, it's a contradiction - but he accepts it anyway. Like I said, it's your prerogative to love contradictions and incoherence.

You cited a passage defending it. OF COURSE they will prefer to defend it rather than undermine their entire house of cards. Obviously. But you shouldn't have to take a PHL 101 course to realize that the following claim is logically indefensible:

Our immutable God became man.

Paul Tillich called it a set of “inescapable contradictions and absurdities” (cited in John v Dahms, "How Reliable Is Logic?," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 21:4 (1978), p. 373)

Morris noted that a number of present-day theologians consider it incoherent - and please note the name of this article (Thomas Morris, “Jesus Christ Was Fully God and Fully Human,” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, ed. Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 599-607)

Predictably you'll dismiss these theologians as "sophomoric" because they challenge your assumptions.

Bottom line: in terms of an exposition and defense of the words you cited, virtually all theologians admit that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS BEING SAID. It's incoherent. They might as well be speaking Chinese to an English-only audience. For example Feinberg stated:

“No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom [the Hypostatic Union]" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412)

Lewis Sperry Chafer described Christ’s simultaneous ignorance and omniscience as unfathomable, for “How could He know and not know?…These are problems the finite mind cannot solve” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Trinitarianism Part 7,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:391 (1941), p. 278).

Oh but right - these experts are all just "sophomoric".

 

[JAL]

And it's your prerogative to project your stuff on the rest of us. Nothing I can do about it.

I see. Your opinion is the only one that matters. I'm surprised the rest of us are allowed to post on this forum.

 

[JAL]

So Lamarckism is "miraculous?" You think art is miraculous? I don't think you've given this enough thought.

By "creative act" I was referring to The Engineer hand-crafting species without the aid of Darwinism. Or in biblical terminology, "God is the potter, you are the clay."

OR, if you hold to the traditional (incoherent) concept of creation ex nihilo (a potter who doesn't have any clay), a "creative act" would be accordingly defined.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see. Your opinion is the only one that matters.

So more projection. We got it.

 

[The Barbarian]

By "creative act" I was referring to The Engineer hand-crafting species without the aid of Darwinism.

More of that Greek philosophy? God is the omnipotent Creator. He's not a mere "engineer" trying to figure things out.

OR, if you hold to the traditional (incoherent) concept of creation ex nihilo

The initial creation was ex nihilo. But life was created using nature and existing creation, according to God's word.

 

[Jonaitis]

Again you are right.

Jesus never lived, never died or rose again, paid for our sins .
The cities mention in the OT do not exist, there is no Jerusalem, Jericho etc etc, Egypt, Hitties, Babyleonans etc all do not exist they are the imaginary products of varrious scribes.


Please do your research again and you will find that the bible is a very accurate history book.

I do not deny Jesus ever lived, died, and rose again, but there are problems with some of the events in His life, if we were to take it all historically. In Matthew, Jesus was born under the reign of Herod (c. 4 BC). In Luke, He was born under Quirinius' jurisdiction (c. 6 AD), who, by the way, replaced Herod's son Archelaus over the Judean province. This is an inconsistency that shows that these events must be interpreted differently.

Luke records that a census took place that covered the whole empire (Luke 2:1), but no such thing ever happened. He must have mistaken the census Quirinius issued for the Judean province when he annexed it to Syria after he took office.

 

[Jonaitis]

Again you are right.

Jesus never lived, never died or rose again, paid for our sins .
The cities mention in the OT do not exist, there is no Jerusalem, Jericho etc etc, Egypt, Hitties, Babyleonans etc all do not exist they are the imaginary products of varrious scribes.


Please do your research again and you will find that the bible is a very accurate history book.

And speaking of Babylonians, who is Darius the Mede (Danial 5:31)? According to the book of Daniel, he reigned after Belshazzar (v. 32), but we know that he fell before Cyrus the Great in 539 BC. He is a central figure in the events of Daniel's life, but historically, he does not exist. We do not even have records of the existence of Daniel, who was an official in the kingdom.

It is likely that Daniel is not meant to be a historical book, but full of imagery and symbolism. None of the events mentioned therein, such as the decree Darius issued, appears in any documented writings of that time.

 

[FaithT]

I do not deny Jesus ever lived, died, and rose again, but there are problems with some of the events in His life, if we were to take it all historically. In Matthew, Jesus was born under the reign of Herod (c. 4 BC). In Luke, He was born under Quirinius' jurisdiction (c. 6 AD), who, by the way, replaced Herod's son Archelaus over the Judean province. This is an inconsistency that shows that these events must be interpreted differently.

Luke records that a census took place that covered the whole empire (Luke 2:1), but no such thing ever happened. He must have mistaken the census Quirinius issued for the Judean province when he annexed it to Syria after he took office.

If you Google “Jesus under Herod and Quirinius” you can find various solutions to this problem. I just don’t want to derail my own thread with this topic. Can you please start another?