• 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.

Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man by Hugh Ross

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Punchy, Feb 25, 2007.

  1. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    Reference for scientific journal that backs up Genesis, John.

    Can't find any? That's because there is a wealth of scientific evidence (I refer you to every biology, astrophysics, physics and geology journal ever printed) that says Genesis is neither accurate nor true.
     
  2. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    Are you referring to Genesis or how young earth creationists interpret Genesis?
     
  3. cerad

    cerad Zebra Fan

    +99
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Rabbits don't chew cud!!!!
    Spiritual rabbits do.

    Insects aren't four-legged!!!
    Many spiritual insects have four legs.

    The world is not flat!!!
    From a spiritual perspective the world is flatter than this thread.

    Pi does not equal 3!!!
    In spiritual math PI is not only 100% 3 but is 100% 1 as well.

    Earth is in motion!!!!
    The earth is the undisputed spiritual center of the universe.
     
  4. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    The Bible says: "In the Beginning" Science confirms that there was a beginning. Science talks about "Adam" & "Eve" this confirms that there was a common ancestor. I can give you many, many, many examples of where Science confirms that the Bible is true.

    People search long and people search hard to try and find something in the Bible that is not accurate and true. For the most part, they have failed to find anything in the Bible that is not true. Science and the Bible work and in hand to confirm each other.

    There is nothing that says Genesis is not accurate. What science falsifys is some of the traditions and some of the popular misconceptions or misinterpretations of the Bible. That is why I say, Science helps us to better understand out Bible. If it were not for science we may never have known that some of our traditional interpretations of the Bible are wrong.
     
  5. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    We have been over this points again and again and we have shown that none of these are a contradiction. Do a search and bring up some of the old threads.

    I never said that atheists were going to understand the Bible. In fact our very point is that the Bible is filled with a vast treasure of knowledge that the atheists does not understand at all. If you want to understand the Bible, then you need the Holy Spirit of God to guide you and lead you into all truth.

    This list is a nice try, but every one of these points fail when it comes to trying to show the Bible is not true. The Bible does not say the earth is flat. The Bible does not say Pi is equal to three. The Bible does not say that the sun revolves around the earth. None of these are in the Bible, these are just typical misunderstandings of what the Bible says and speaks to us today.

    IF the Bible did say this, then that is exactly what you would expect to find. You would expect that new scientific information would show old understanding and knowledge to be wrong. But that is exactly why people accept the Bible as true. Because the Bible was written over 3500 years ago and new information has been found in the last 3500 years and all of that new information confirms the Bible to be true.
     
  6. LittleNipper

    LittleNipper Contributor

    +165
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    There is a wealth of information that says that these values are not observable but inferred. ALL inference is capable of being controlled by Satan unless GOD is the foundation of the revelation....
     
  7. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Show me what you got. Put up some evidence to back up what you are saying. Remember, you have to show the Bible is not true. I admit that not all christians represent the Bible. So just showing an interpretation wrong, does not falsify the Bible itself.

    It would be nice if people could learn how to sort all of this out. If they accept it and believe it or not.
     
  8. LittleNipper

    LittleNipper Contributor

    +165
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Modern scientific terminology does not control reality. It may control modern concepts? You may not wish to accept that insects have both arms and legs but that doesn't preclude that such a rationalization is not more descriptive of how insects actually use their appendages. And simply because you do not wish to know the thickness of the walls of something round doesn't preclude GOD from informing the fabricators in any way HE wishes...... And the Earth does stick to its route arond the sun ------ it hasn't taken off for the outer reaches of the Universeas of yet......
     
  9. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    I'm referring to the literal interpretation as used by, but not limited to, YECs.

    The Bible says 'rabbits chew their cud', the Bible says "he could see all four corners of the Earth", the Bible says "the Sun was stopped in the sky", the Bible says God created the Earth in a number of days, and so on and so forth. So on face value it appears the Bible has a great deal in error. Unless you interpret it differently (see below).

    This is one of the more sensible views to take. But bear in mind that it is obvious now that anything in the Bible is true, because if you find a contradiction with reality you change your interpretation to match reality.

    I applaud you for doing so, but you need to realise that it makes it utterly unsurprising the Bible appears to never be wrong - the same could be said of any book if a similar approach was taken for its interpretation.

    You can either interpret the Bible as it appears and find it is in error, or interpret the Bible in light of science and find that it is, unremarkably, consistent with our knowledge of the world. Perhaps worse, if the Bible appears to be in error without science to show you how to interpret it, perhaps you should be wary about drawing conclusions using the Bible when you have no science to guide you in what it is talking about.
     
  10. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    I'll take my chances with Satan. You can stay in the dark ages if you like.
     
  11. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,439
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I haven't read the book, but would be interested in seeing an accurate description of it. From things I've seen from Ross and Rana, it probably proposes the special creation of a pair of humans ~100,000 years ago. Somewhere I read that they were now proposing that Adam's sperm had lots of different genetic variants, including (some? lots?) of stuff lifted from existing non-human primates (H. erectus, maybe?), as a way of getting around the genetic evidence for the antiquity of humans. If they pursued this approach aggressively enough, they mght be able to come up with a model that was indistinguishable genetically from evolution, which strikes me as both clever and perverse.
     
  12. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    Would such an interpretation include Hugh Ross?
     
  13. random_guy

    random_guy Senior Veteran

    +134
    Christian
    Stupid question, but how does one defend grasshoppers having only 4 legs. I would love to know the mental gymnastics needed for that.
     
  14. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    I haven't a clue.
     
  15. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Well, I'm willing to consider it, however I need something more than words. Please, give me the Bible's deffinition of "legs", or what is not "leg".

    Indeed! Yet...
     
  16. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,439
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It sounds like you'll have to read it and tell us what's in it.
     
  17. Punchy

    Punchy Guest

    +0
    Then why post in a thread related to Hugh Ross?
     
  18. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    For precisely the same reason Wiccan_child explained.
     
  19. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,588
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Not to take this down too much of a tangent, but from what I've read the reference is to creepeth, which the grasshoppers only do with 4 of their legs while the other two are use for jumping. Or something like that.
     
  20. random_guy

    random_guy Senior Veteran

    +134
    Christian
    Ouch, my head hurts :sigh:.
     
Loading...