why humans are not primates

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Aman777 is saying Adam was created on the third day the bible says the sixth I was actually correcting you wen u said the bible doesn't say sixth that's all, just a small error on you part.

No, that's not what I said. What I said to Aman777 was: "Your claim that Adam was created before the Sixth Day is not supported by the Bible."
That's not my claim. That's Aman777's claim.

 

[A greater Hope]

No, that's not what I said. What I said to Aman777 was: "Your claim that Adam was created before the Sixth Day is not supported by the Bible."
That's not my claim. That's Aman777's claim.

Ok sir srry for my misunderstanding.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok sir srry for my misunderstanding.

No problem. It happens.

 

[USincognito]

Mister if u see your self made in the image of a primate rather than God then so be it but if so it proves you don't believe the word of God.

If you are conflating a theological description of humanity, with a scientific classification for humans, I can see why you're having such a hard time grasping the facts. Humans having characteristics not shared by all primates does not exclude us from being primates, it means we're a different type of primate. Just as we're different types of euarchontoglires, mammals, amniotes, terrestrial tetrapods, sarcopterygiians, craniates, vertebrates, etc.

 

[USincognito]

... evolutionist can about the Big Bang theory why? Because none of us was there to bear witness nevertheless I have something evolutionist...

1. Are you one of those who thinks that all science that isn't in line with Creationism is "evolution"?
2. Do you deny that there are theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists who accept evolution and deep time?

 

[A greater Hope]

1. Are you one of those who thinks that all science that isn't in line with Creationism is "evolution"?
2. Do you deny that there are theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists who accept evolution and deep time?

Point is wether I deny it or not I trust and have firm faith that the scriptures says God formed the worlds and created them into existence it's not my place to go into your world with science and all that stuff if It's not my strength the scriptures are my stronghold so if you wanna make me understand something bring it forth from the truth which is Gods word.

 

[Aman777]

Actually Adam was created on the 6th day Aman777 said the third day just a slight correction.

Adam was "formed" of the dust of the ground, like a Potter molds clay on the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and trees GREW. Gen 2:4-7 The plants herbs and trees GREW on the 3rd Day according to Gen 1:12.

Adam was "created" in God's Image on the present 6th Creative Day on the same Day Eve was made from Adam's rib. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2. Like ALL Christians, Adam was born again Spiritually, in Christ, on the present Day of Salvation, the 6th Day. This is confirmed by the Scriptural FACT that Eve was NOT made until the 6th Day Gen 2:22 and BOTH Adam and Eve were "created" Spiritually and Eternally, on the present 6th Day/Age at the SAME time and God called THEIR name Adam (Heb-mankind) in the Day they were created.

Gen 5:2 Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Being born again Spiritually in Christ is to be CREATED by the Trinity and EVERY time the Trinity Creates, it is an Eternal Creation.

Here is the chronology Scripturally:

Adam is made on the 3rd Day, physically but not Spiritually. Gen 2:4-7
Eve is made on the present 6th Day physically Gen 2:22 but not Spiritually since BOTH A&E were made by YHWH/Jesus, called Lord God in the Old Testament.

Both were born Spiritually AFTER Cain killed Abel, which was long after the fall, and both were created at the same time and God called THEIR name Adam (mankind) on the Day they were created by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Gen 1:26 and John 14:16

This is also confirmed in the New Testament by this verse:

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

Amen?

 

[Aman777]

No problem. It happens.

Adam was "formed" physically on the 3rd Day before the plants Gen 2:4-7 by the Hands of the Lord God (YHWH/Jesus).
Adam was "created" in God's Image which is in Christ Spiritually on the present 6th Day by the AGREEMENT of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Gen 1:26 and John 14:16.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was NOT first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Florida, I think you should also do some editing. "Great an Amen"? Do you mean"Amen is great"? Also, explain what you mean by these electronic universal threads.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Mister if u see your self made in the image of a primate rather than God then so be it but if so it proves you don't believe the word of God.

The point of the thread is whether humans are primates. We are.

But yes, you are right about me not believing a literal interpretation of the bible. Nevertheless, that does not make our forward facing eyes, or fingernails, or any of our other primate characteristics go away.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, GreaterHope, I for one do not believe the Bible was interred by God to be a scientific account of creation. How would a primitive, semi-barbaric society understand the enormous size and numbers that go with a scientific account of the universe? You say the Bible is the word of God. I have trouble with that for several basic reasons. The Bible never claims it is the Word of God. If anything, going on the Bible itself, this would be a blasphemous form of Bibleolatry. The Bible applies the term "Word of God" exclusively and only to Christ. Furthermore, you are assuming the inerrancy theory, which is just that, a theory about the Bible thought up by fallible humans in a prescientific culture. Like any human-made theory, it can be fallible and needs to be checked out. With the birth of modern biblical scholarship, from the nineteenth century to the present, careful study of the texts reveals he Bible contains numerous contradictions, and divinely inspired as it may be, also has fallible human fingerprints all over itself. This is particularly true of Genesis, which gives two contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man. In 2, first man, then animals, etc. These accounts are in wholly different literary styles, and best guess is that 2 was written long before 1.

Another issue is the imago. What does it mean to be made ion the image of God? According to science, man evolved from something far lower, from apes. In itself, that seems sort of miraculous. If God could make a man out of monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. Actually, according to the Bible, humans have an even more humble origin, as Genesis claims we are made out of dust. I have often heard fundamentalists trying to knock evolution, by asking, "If God made man out of a monkey, does God look like a monkey?" Good question! I view the universe as the body of God. Hence, everything we look at in the universe is a picture of what God is like in his or her own nature. On the other hand, nothing looks exactly like God, nor can it, as the whole, God, is always greater than the sum of its parts, and no entity can ever see the whole of the universe. To give an example closer to home, I can say that anyone that has seen my big toe has seen a real dimension of what I look like, but solely a part of me. After all, my whole body is overally shaped very differently from my big toe. Does God look like an ape? Yes, because apes are ontologically part of the being of God.

 

[A greater Hope]

Well, GreaterHope, I for one do not believe the Bible was interred by God to be a scientific account of creation. How would a primitive, semi-barbaric society understand the enormous size and numbers that go with a scientific account of the universe? You say the Bible is the word of God. I have trouble with that for several basic reasons. The Bible never claims it is the Word of God. If anything, going on the Bible itself, this would be a blasphemous form of Bibleolatry. The Bible applies the term "Word of God" exclusively and only to Christ. Furthermore, you are assuming the inerrancy theory, which is just that, a theory about the Bible thought up by fallible humans in a prescientific culture. Like any human-made theory, it can be fallible and needs to be checked out. With the birth of modern biblical scholarship, from the nineteenth century to the present, careful study of the texts reveals he Bible contains numerous contradictions, and divinely inspired as it may be, also has fallible human fingerprints all over itself. This is particularly true of Genesis, which gives two contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man. In 2, first man, then animals, etc. These accounts are in wholly different literary styles, and best guess is that 2 was written long before 1.

Another issue is the imago. What does it mean to be made ion the image of God? According to science, man evolved from something far lower, from apes. In itself, that seems sort of miraculous. If God could make a man out of monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. Actually, according to the Bible, humans have an even more humble origin, as Genesis claims we are made out of dust. I have often heard fundamentalists trying to knock evolution, by asking, "If God made man out of a monkey, does God look like a monkey?" Good question! I view the universe as the body of God. Hence, everything we look at in the universe is a picture of what God is like in his or her own nature. On the other hand, nothing looks exactly like God, nor can it, as the whole, God, is always greater than the sum of its parts, and no entity can ever see the whole of the universe. To give an example closer to home, I can say that anyone that has seen my big toe has seen a real dimension of what I look like, but solely a part of me. After all, my whole body is overally shaped very differently from my big toe. Does God look like an ape? Yes, because apes are ontologically part of the being of God.

Your show of wisdom is not good nor is it of God.i won't go into a debate with either of you tonight I leave it in Gods hand through the Holy Spirit if you won't continue to reject him as you have already confessed to deny him God through his word.This bring back to mind with Saul Paul who persecuted the church of Christ he told Saul that it's hard to kick against the pricks.So brethren take heed and stop I pray you kicking against the pricks,
Shalom.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Greater Hope, your response is totally inappropriate in a serious theology discussion. First, you used some foul four-letter words. I'm surprised the management didn't screen you out for that. Secondly, your grammar, etc., here is horrible, so if you haven't already, I strongly suggest you take an additional course in English as a second language. Thirdly, you response is totally inappropriate as it is largely a form of character assassination. I realize this approach is commonly used by fundamentalists. However, what it really reflects is your belief that if you do not have the intellectual power to overcome your opponents, you simply cheat and try to get even by attaching the character of one's opponent, describing him or her as godless, lost soul, blaspheming God, etc. That just doesn't impress me here at all. If you feel I am wrong in my assumptions, then get busy and provide solid counterarguments and allow me to respond.

 

[Frenzy]

I have something evolutionist don't and that's "Faith", I explain what that is to you earlier,and without faith it's impossible to please the God of all flesh and spirits.

Strangely you only ever use faith when it comes to your religion you don't use it in any other part of your life, don't you find that to be a little weird?
Please don't tell me you use faith every day because you don't, you use experience and previous knowledge you gain from just being alive not faith, if you think you do use faith please tell me when you think you use faith?
Example: I have faith that my wife loves me, no you don't you use your experiences with your wife to tell you she loves you, she tells you and she shows you she loves you, if you pointed to a stranger in the street and said she loves you, that would require faith.

Faith is reserved solely for religions.

 

[florida2]

Well, Florida, I think you should also do some editing. "Great an Amen"? Do you mean"Amen is great"? Also, explain what you mean by these electronic universal threads.

I don't need to do any editing, thank you very much.

I was quoting another poster who said 'Great an Aman thread'. Aman refers to Aman777 who likes to burst into threads which then often get taken over by his unique and 'interesting' views.

Electric universe is a non-mainstream idea about the universe that a couple of posters on here love to drag into any thread, no matter what the subject is. I assume you haven't been around here very long?

 

[: D]

Heres an article that discusses the feet of A. Afarensis:

http://johnhawks.net/explainer/early-hominins/feet-australopithecus-afarensis

Here's an excerpt from that article . . .



You might also like this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...cy-feet-walked-feet-science-afarensis-fossil/

at the risk of being called uncool again,
is this the sum total of transitional "feet fossils" ?

is this ^ not a fully formed human foot ?
obviously your links state that one bone suggests the possibility it belonged to a transitional being,
when it simply fits the human structure.
this must strike you as strange.

any other "feet fossils" for us to look at ?

 

[Aman777]

Well, GreaterHope, I for one do not believe the Bible was interred by God to be a scientific account of creation. How would a primitive, semi-barbaric society understand the enormous size and numbers that go with a scientific account of the universe?

Such a compromise position reveals someone who does NOT believe the Bible. Amen?

***You say the Bible is the word of God. I have trouble with that for several basic reasons. The Bible never claims it is the Word of God.

Sure it does, as the following verses show:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (God breathed) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

***If anything, going on the Bible itself, this would be a blasphemous form of Bibleolatry.

WHY? Do you actually believe that anyone can convince us that they are a believer in Christ, by refusing to believe God's Holy Word? It's like trying to show us that you are a Muslim but you don't believe the Quran.

***The Bible applies the term "Word of God" exclusively and only to Christ.

Of course it does since the Bible is ALL about Jesus. He told us:

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.

Can you find Jesus in Genesis? or is the above just propaganda?

*** Furthermore, you are assuming the inerrancy theory, which is just that, a theory about the Bible thought up by fallible humans in a prescientific culture. Like any human-made theory, it can be fallible and needs to be checked out. With the birth of modern biblical scholarship, from the nineteenth century to the present, careful study of the texts reveals he Bible contains numerous contradictions, and divinely inspired as it may be, also has fallible human fingerprints all over itself.

Proclaiming that God's Holy Word is full of contradictions shows that the those who post such things CANNOT understand Scripture, and need to seek another interpretation than the one they have.

*** This is particularly true of Genesis, which gives two contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man. In 2, first man, then animals, etc. These accounts are in wholly different literary styles, and best guess is that 2 was written long before 1.

False, since there are NO contradictions in the Holy Spirit's account of Genesis 1 and 2. What is indicated is that one's interpretation is Flawed. Posting that the Spirit of Truth tells contradictions (lies) is false.

*** Another issue is the imago. What does it mean to be made ion the image of God?

Jesus is the ONLY Image of the invisible God. Col 1:15, speaking of Jesus:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Those who have been made alive Spiritually are created in the Image of God, which is in Jesus Christ, Spiritually and Eternally.

*** According to science, man evolved from something far lower, from apes. In itself, that seems sort of miraculous. If God could make a man out of monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. Actually, according to the Bible, humans have an even more humble origin, as Genesis claims we are made out of dust. I have often heard fundamentalists trying to knock evolution, by asking, "If God made man out of a monkey, does God look like a monkey?" Good question! I view the universe as the body of God. Hence, everything we look at in the universe is a picture of what God is like in his or her own nature. On the other hand, nothing looks exactly like God, nor can it, as the whole, God, is always greater than the sum of its parts, and no entity can ever see the whole of the universe. To give an example closer to home, I can say that anyone that has seen my big toe has seen a real dimension of what I look like, but solely a part of me. After all, my whole body is overally shaped very differently from my big toe. Does God look like an ape? Yes, because apes are ontologically part of the being of God.<<<

Such compromising is typical of those who have REJECTED God's Literal Truth of the Bible. Are you just crashing a Christian board? Bible believing Christians will continue to reject the views of such posts because we have NO faith in those who THINK they know more than God. Amen?

BTW, If you don't want to get an E-mail of this, go to "More Options" and click the box which cuts off your E-mail copies of this post.

 

[Hoghead1]

I completely disagree with what you have to say about faith. In point of fact, all walks of life, all daily activities, require some degree of faith. Just to sit down in a chair requires faith that it will hold you. Ever sat down and had one collapse? I sure have. This is also true of science. For example, you cannot verify the scientific method, you cannot verify the verification principle, a point widely recognized in the philosophy of science. The advancement of knowledge is like an airplane ride. You start with he facts and then take off, speculate, and then try and come back down, obtain evidence. Sometimes, it can take quite a wile to get in hard evidence, so meanwhile, you are going on speculations. If you are still confused about how faith is basic to even everyday experience, try reading the idealists, Berkeley, Leibniz, or the rationalists such as Descartes. They have raised very strong doubts about the commonsense way we perceive reality. In the idealists, there is truly no external world, everything is an illusion implanted in our minds by God. In Descartes, the only thing he can be sure of, the only thing you cannot doubt is that you or he is a thinking substance. The existence of the material world, even his body, is up for grabs.

 

[Hoghead1]

I realize it is a habit in certain fundamentalist quarters to answer there opponent's point about Scripture, simply by saying the opponent is really just a pathetic lost soul who really does not understand. However, this kind of response is totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion. The reason is that such a reply to opponents stems from the fact one does not have sufficient intellectual firpower to shoot down the opponent's arguments, so, to get even, cheat and attack his character. We are not impressed by that. If you want to challenge my arguments that Scripture is not best described s the Word of God, not inerrant, etc., then you need to present me with a solid counterargument, rather than attack my character. You made somewhat of an effort to do that in presenting some biblical passages. But, upon further consideration, these do not prove your points. There are, for example, various theories of how the inspiration process may work which do not require an inerrant Scripture. In addition, you have failed to specify here what you take to be under the heading "Scripture." Remember, at the time these passages were written there was no canon, no Bible such as we have. So the question remains which Bible you consider inerrant. Should, for example, the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? If so, the Catholic and Anglican Bibles are OK, while the Protest ones, which exclude there books, are obviously in error here. If no, then the Protestant Bibles are OK, whereas the Catholic and Septuagint are off. Should the Samaritan Pentateuch be included? If no, then it is incorrect, s it contains 11 Commandments. If you, then our Bibles are off, as they include only 10. Hence, your largely character-assassination response does not really address the deep and complex issues here.

 

[Hoghead1]

Such a compromise position reveals someone who does NOT believe the Bible. Amen?

***You say the Bible is the word of God. I have trouble with that for several basic reasons. The Bible never claims it is the Word of God.

Sure it does, as the following verses show:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (God breathed) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

***If anything, going on the Bible itself, this would be a blasphemous form of Bibleolatry.

WHY? Do you actually believe that anyone can convince us that they are a believer in Christ, by refusing to believe God's Holy Word? It's like trying to show us that you are a Muslim but you don't believe the Quran.

***The Bible applies the term "Word of God" exclusively and only to Christ.

Of course it does since the Bible is ALL about Jesus. He told us:

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.

Can you find Jesus in Genesis? or is the above just propaganda?

*** Furthermore, you are assuming the inerrancy theory, which is just that, a theory about the Bible thought up by fallible humans in a prescientific culture. Like any human-made theory, it can be fallible and needs to be checked out. With the birth of modern biblical scholarship, from the nineteenth century to the present, careful study of the texts reveals he Bible contains numerous contradictions, and divinely inspired as it may be, also has fallible human fingerprints all over itself.

Proclaiming that God's Holy Word is full of contradictions shows that the those who post such things CANNOT understand Scripture, and need to seek another interpretation than the one they have.

*** This is particularly true of Genesis, which gives two contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man. In 2, first man, then animals, etc. These accounts are in wholly different literary styles, and best guess is that 2 was written long before 1.

False, since there are NO contradictions in the Holy Spirit's account of Genesis 1 and 2. What is indicated is that one's interpretation is Flawed. Posting that the Spirit of Truth tells contradictions (lies) is false.

*** Another issue is the imago. What does it mean to be made ion the image of God?

Jesus is the ONLY Image of the invisible God. Col 1:15, speaking of Jesus:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Those who have been made alive Spiritually are created in the Image of God, which is in Jesus Christ, Spiritually and Eternally.

*** According to science, man evolved from something far lower, from apes. In itself, that seems sort of miraculous. If God could make a man out of monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. Actually, according to the Bible, humans have an even more humble origin, as Genesis claims we are made out of dust. I have often heard fundamentalists trying to knock evolution, by asking, "If God made man out of a monkey, does God look like a monkey?" Good question! I view the universe as the body of God. Hence, everything we look at in the universe is a picture of what God is like in his or her own nature. On the other hand, nothing looks exactly like God, nor can it, as the whole, God, is always greater than the sum of its parts, and no entity can ever see the whole of the universe. To give an example closer to home, I can say that anyone that has seen my big toe has seen a real dimension of what I look like, but solely a part of me. After all, my whole body is overally shaped very differently from my big toe. Does God look like an ape? Yes, because apes are ontologically part of the being of God.<<<

Such compromising is typical of those who have REJECTED God's Literal Truth of the Bible. Are you just crashing a Christian board? Bible believing Christians will continue to reject the views of such posts because we have NO faith in those who THINK they know more than God. Amen?

BTW, If you don't want to get an E-mail of this, go to "More Options" and click the box which cuts off your E-mail copies of this post.