Yet Another Theo-Evo Contradiction

[Ark Guy]

According to the Theistic Evolutionary sect the bible mentions or hints at evolution in the following verses:

Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth...
Gen 1:24 Let the earth bring forth...
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...

It's obvious if God created man in his image by using evolution then Adam had to have had male and female "cousins" that were very similar to him.

So, if Adam had others living near, around or with him then why did God in Gen 2:18 say;
"It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him"?
Why did God in verse 21 and 22 then need to form a woman from Adams rib if there were other females around?

This seems to be quite a contradiction that the Theo-Evo sect needs to explain.

....Any takers?

 

[Vance]

Well, Lucaspa and others in the "wholly allegorical" school of thought (which, btw, started not long after the Church itself started back in the second century, and many of the Jewish sects also read these accounts allegorically), would just say that Adam and Eve were "types" for Man itself. God creating Eve was meant to teach us that God intended Man and Woman to be together and that God set it up this way.

Those us who are more inclined to think that God took some type of special action regarding Man at some point in the development (infusion of a soul, possibly) would say that once God had done this with Adam, it was clear that no proper helper would be found among all those around him, so a mate was "infused" as well.

Or, even if God took a special creative act as I believe, it may not have been to an individual, but to an entire species and the Eve story is allegorical as others have said.

Or, even if the entire species was given this special breath, He could still have chosen out a single man to serve as a representative, then chosen a single female.

We just don't know, but there are a lot of possibilities. To me, what actually happened in this regard is one of the great mysteries we will likely never know until we get to heaven. We do know that God created everything and that He created Man to have a special relationship with Him, but that Man fell and is in need of redemption.

 

[InnerPhyre]

According to the Theistic Evolutionary sect the bible mentions or hints at evolution in the following verses:

Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth...
Gen 1:24 Let the earth bring forth...
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...

It's obvious if God created man in his image by using evolution then Adam had to have had male and female "cousins" that were very similar to him.

So, if Adam had others living near, around or with him then why did God in Gen 2:18 say;
"It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him"?
Why did God in verse 21 and 22 then need to form a woman from Adams rib if there were other females around?

This seems to be quite a contradiction that the Theo-Evo sect needs to explain.

....Any takers?

From a purely theological standpoint what you say works, but you can't use the Bible to argue with scientists, as it is considered an invalid source for historical and scientific information to them.

 

[Vance]

And they are correct regarding science, although not so correct for history. There is a lot of solid historical content in Scripture. I am not so much worried about convincing an atheistic scientist with history or science, but with the message of redemption. Insisting that the Bible must be read literally as science only puts up a stumbling block to that message.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Agreed

 

[mo.]

From what you say, it means that if I am not born of Adam, I don't need redemption, since I could have descended from others. The problem with believing in evolution is that you just have to take parts of Scriptures liberally, whenever you like, to make it work. Genesis says that God created Man out of the ground, it talks about "no shrubs of the field had yet sprung up". Very straight forward reading to me about one man, one creation, one Eve, one Fall, one global Flood and we ALL descended from the one Ark. Just as literally as there is only one Christ.

 

[Bushido216]

What sucks for that theory is that the Ark and Genesis were proven wrong many, many, many years ago.

 

[Vance]

Sure, you can follow the literal interpretation, and some do. Most Christians don't, but some do. But what happens then if your literal interpretation is shown to be wrong? If you have tied your faith, and your belief in the Scriptures validity, in that particular interpretation, then you must necessarily doubt Scripture. Very dangerous position to preach to others.

And, keep in mind that most Christians somehow have no problem at all with the idea that "Adam's fall" means that we definitely need redemption, whether they read it as typology, allegory or literal specifics. So, your concern that if you don't believe in the literal interpretation, you will not believe you need redemption has already been proven unfounded.

 

[Ark Guy]

snip..
We just don't know, but there are a lot of possibilities. To me, what actually happened in this regard is one of the great mysteries we will likely never know until we get to heaven. We do know that God created everything and that He created Man to have a special relationship with Him, but that Man fell and is in need of redemption.

Vance, you forget that we know what happened...read the bible. Don't twist it around to fit some concept of evolutionISM.

So, back to the contradictions you must embrace if you decide to be a Theo-Evo.

 

[Ark Guy]

Sure, you can follow the literal interpretation, and some do. Most Christians don't, but some do. But what happens then if your literal interpretation is shown to be wrong? If you have tied your faith, and your belief in the Scriptures validity, in that particular interpretation, then you must necessarily doubt Scripture. Very dangerous position to preach to others.

And, keep in mind that most Christians somehow have no problem at all with the idea that "Adam's fall" means that we definitely need redemption, whether they read it as typology, allegory or literal specifics. So, your concern that if you don't believe in the literal interpretation, you will not believe you need redemption has already been proven unfounded.

I think Mo already refuted this point in his post above.

If someone was not part of Adams linage, then they are not subject to Adams sin that will be passed on throught his descendents.

Looks like vances The-Evo theology is coming unwrapped. The question is, will vance humble himself and continue with the Satanic Godless lie of evolution?

 

[Ark Guy]

And they are correct regarding science, although not so correct for history. There is a lot of solid historical content in Scripture. I am not so much worried about convincing an atheistic scientist with history or science, but with the message of redemption. Insisting that the Bible must be read literally as science only puts up a stumbling block to that message.

Once again your theological ideas falls apart.

The resurrection was what? A myth? After all a resurrection is scientifically impossible...so there is no way it could have happened....with out a miracle.

Come to think of it the glorious six day creation performed by Jesus Christ was a miracle...but nahhhhh, the Theo-Evo sect claims it didn't happen the way the bible claims.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Once again your theological ideas falls apart.

The resurrection was what? A myth? After all a resurrection is scientifically impossible...so there is no way it could have happened....with out a miracle.

Come to think of it the glorious six day creation performed by Jesus Christ was a miracle...but nahhhhh, the Theo-Evo sect claims it didn't happen the way the bible claims.

There is no evidence that the Ressurection did not happen. There is a LOT of evidence that literal 6 day creation did not. God is not a liar.

 

[Ark Guy]

A resurrection of a guy being dead for 3 days is scientifically impossible.

THAT IS EVIDENCE ALONE.

Of course if God is not a liar, then why does the bible claim Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his side? This certainly isn't evoilution. Your theo-evo logic cracks me up. It makes me chuckle.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You're raising this dead comparison again?

We do not, repeat, DO NOT reject 6 day creationism because it is impossible - for God anything is possible.

We reject it because the evidence screams loud and clear that it did not occur, that the earth is millions of years old, and life has undergone descent with modification throughout its history.

What of the Resurrection? Is it impossible. No. For God anything is possible. Did it occur? There is no actual evidence that it didn't. There is evidence that it did - the mere existence of the church; the witness of millions that Jesus is alive. Believing it is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Ark Guy]

Karl, you seem to be forgetting all of the evidence that strongly suggest a young earth. I could present a list but you'd just look the other way out of ignorance.

I still think it's funny how you claim science has disproven one miracle..then claim another is possible yet seem to forget that science has also disproven resurrections.

 

[Ark Guy]

Looks like were getting off topic. I'm still looking for an answer as to why Eve was created if the earth already had plenty of females.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl, you seem to be forgetting all of the evidence that strongly suggest a young earth. I could present a list but you'd just look the other way out of ignorance.

Wrong. I will address any evidence you post. Bring one on.

I still think it's funny how you claim science has disproven one miracle..then claim another is possible yet seem to forget that science has also disproven resurrections.

I think it's incredibly amusing that you desperately cling to this ancient canard when we've explained the difference until we're blue in the face. It's called desperation.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Looks like were getting off topic. I'm still looking for an answer as to why Eve was created if the earth already had plenty of females.

I'm looking for an answer as to why anyone would interpret the creation of Eve (or at least the Genesis 2 version) literally when narrative is entirely figurative.

 

[ThePhoenix]

A resurrection of a guy being dead for 3 days is scientifically impossible.

THAT IS EVIDENCE ALONE.

Of course if God is not a liar, then why does the bible claim Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his side? This certainly isn't evoilution. Your theo-evo logic cracks me up. It makes me chuckle.

Science doesn't say that. A ressurection of a guy who has been dead for 3 days has never been observed, and could not occur naturally (DUH!). However if the earth was created 6000 years ago it was created with features that make it appear much older. That makes God a liar.

 

[Vance]

Yes, God can do the scientifically impossible. Even scientists agree that a supernatural being would be able to do supernatural actions and this would not contradict their scientific concepts at all.

Again, not for you since you have been told this so often it is a bit pathetic of you to raise it again, but for all else who may be misled by your strawman:

Science does not say that a supernatural event can not take place which would override the laws of nature they have observed, such as the inability to rise from the dead. Science is a limited tool for discovering and describing what happens in the natural world. To the extent a supernatural being comes in and overrides the rules, they have nothing say about it one way or the other. Jesus raising Lazerus or raising himself does not, in any way, mean that the rule of Nature (created by God Himself) that people do not raise from the dead is no longer valid. That rule is still in effect, subject at any moment to further overriding by God.

The ONLY time science can comment is when someone claims a certain supernatural event occured when there is evidence that it has NOT occured. Such as with a Creation 6,000 years ago over a six 24 hour period. Science does NOT say God could not do this. It can not make such statements. But scientists can point out all the evidence that shows that God did NOT create that way.

And this evidence is so overwhelming that 99.9% of the scientists in the relevant fields accept this is true, including the majority of CHRISTIAN scientists.

Now, if Arkguy wishes to present all of his evidence for a young earth, he can go right ahead and we will deal with each in turn. But he is right, it should be done in another thread.