Why do men have nipples?

[mathetes123]

Which is irrelevant. Since both Christians and atheists come to the same conclusions regarding evolution, this conclusion is not dependent on worldview.

Of course it is dependent on worldview. Christians who hold to the authority of the bible as the inspired word of God are going to believe in creationism.

 

[serge546]

I'm sure many christians that believe in evolution believe that about the bible, as well.

 

[mathetes123]

I'm sure many christians that believe in evolution believe that about the bible, as well.

The teaching of evolution cannot be reconciled with scripture. Read Genesis 1 & 2.

 

[Johnnz]

Nor should we try. They are two different 'texts' one concerned with purpose, the 'why'?, the other with 'how?' and 'when?'

John
NZ

 

[mathetes123]

Nor should we try. They are two different 'texts' one concerned with purpose, the 'why'?, the other with 'how?' and 'when?'

John
NZ

Scripture gives us the how and the time period in which it occured.

 

[Johnnz]

"Scripture gives us the how and the time period in which it occured."0

No way. There are events to which meaning was attached. But never 'This is the recipe. This is how God made the cosmos.' That was not a concern for those times.

John
NZ

 

[mathetes123]

"Scripture gives us the how and the time period in which it occured."0

No way. There are events to which meaning was attached. But never 'This is the recipe. This is how God made the cosmos.' That was not a concern for those times.

John
NZ

God spoke it into existence in 6 literal days according to scripture

 

[Johnnz]

God spoke it into existence in 6 literal days according to scripture

If is was written as an historical narrative that would be correct. But it's not written in that style. It is poetic in structure teaching us something more than narrative can achieve.

Look up John Walton' on You Tube and listen to his talks on Genesis.

John
NZ

 

[mathetes123]

If is was written as an historical narrative that would be correct. But it's not written in that style. It is poetic in structure teaching us something more than narrative can achieve.

Look up John Walton' on You Tube and listen to his talks on Genesis.

John
NZ

Was Adam a historical figure or not. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[CabVet]

The teaching of evolution cannot be reconciled with scripture. Read Genesis 1 & 2.

You cannot reconcile Genesis 1 and 2 either as they give two different stories of creation, you should read them when you get a chance too.

 

[Jamin4422]

Was Adam a historical figure or not.

Adam was a historical figure that lived 6,000 years ago.

 

[mathetes123]

You cannot reconcile Genesis 1 and 2 either as they give two different stories of creation, you should read them when you get a chance too.

They don't give two different stories, they just change the emphasis.

 

[Johnnz]

Was Adam a historical figure or not. You cannot have it both ways.

Place Adam within the entire narrative of the beginning of God's story for humanity. It tells of God's creation of humanity (Adam is actually not a proper name in the first chapters of Genesis but rather indicates 'humanity') and our place within His creation, stewards and priests over it, under God. Whether an individual, or as a representative of humanity as we understand it today, Adam has genuine meaning for us theologically regarding purpose, sin and salvation.

John
NZ

 

[mathetes123]

Place Adam within the entire narrative of the beginning of God's story for humanity. It tells of God's creation of humanity (Adam is actually not a proper name in the first chapters of Genesis but rather indicates 'humanity') and our place within His creation, stewards and priests over it, under God. Whether an individual, or as a representative of humanity as we understand it today, Adam has genuine meaning for us theologically regarding purpose, sin and salvation.

John
NZ

Evolution cannot be reconciled with scripture:

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.
2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.
3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.
4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.
5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.
6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.
8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

 

[Jamin4422]

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.

If Adam was not real then at what point do people become real? Was Abraham real? Was Moses real? Was David and Solomon real? There are people that claim Jesus was not a real person. They do not accept real people until you get to the disciples and the early church fathers.

 

[Jro]

Without nipples there wouldn't be any need for men to wear shirts and God was totally into shirts.

 

[Johnnz]

Evolution cannot be reconciled with scripture:

Two Issues here:

a) Two different stories with a different purpose. Reconciliation is not needed.
b) Atheistic evolution denies God as creator. That is a blatant contradiction of the Biblical story

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve wnas merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.

If b) above then obviously there will be opposing viewpoints.
However, Adam can be part of a genealogy, to signify a line of descent, without that necessitating a consecutive history, as in Matthew's genealogy for example.

2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.

The name can be used in a representative sense - all of humanity

3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.

Unfallen man (Adam) was not immortal. There was death prior to the Fall. Food was consumed - death to plants. Creatures were not immortal - they too would die. It's death as we know it today that was something new post Fall. Labour in childbirth after the Fall would be more painful, implying there was some pain before then.

The earth

4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.

5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.

Not necessarily. The format is poetic and carefully arranged. Look at the repeated phrases - that is not strict prose narrative. The use of days may have been a literary device.

6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.

Within the context of the story. From the NT we learn that the true Sabbath rest is the salvation that Jesus offers. Again, used as a literary device to signify an ending to the Divine purposes.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.

As before, that could well have been in a representative sense. All of humanity is summed up in Adam.

8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

I have given some alternative views. You will find many Christians have adopted some or all of them. The strong emphasis represented by fundamentalist creationists is particularly strong in sections of the American church. Elsewhere, most Christians have few issues with faith and science, except where evolution is used as a component of an atheistic position.

Have you listened to John Walton yet? That will give you a lot more information that we can exchange here.

John
NZ

 

[Tomk80]

Of course it is dependent on worldview. Christians who hold to the authority of the bible as the inspired word of God are going to believe in creationism.

Just a couple of posts you agreed with me that there are Christians who accept the theory of eovlution. Why do you start lying again?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Without nipples there wouldn't be any need for men to wear shirts and God was totally into shirts.

Best answer in 32 pages.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by mathetes123

Was Adam a historical figure or not. You cannot have it both ways.
​

Place Adam within the entire narrative of the beginning of God's story for humanity. It tells of God's creation of humanity (Adam is actually not a proper name in the first chapters of Genesis but rather indicates 'humanity') and our place within His creation, stewards and priests over it, under God. Whether an individual, or as a representative of humanity as we understand it today, Adam has genuine meaning for us theologically regarding purpose, sin and salvation.

John
NZ

There are 2 different words used for the "adam" in the OT

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number H120 matches the Hebrew אָדָם ('adam), which occurs 552 times in 527 verses in the Hebrew concordance

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number H121 matches the Hebrew אָדָם ('Adam), which occurs 9 times in 9 verses in the Hebrew concordance


120 'adam aw-dawm' from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

121 'Adam aw-dawm' the same as 120; Adam the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine:--Adam.

.