Jump to content
IGNORED

No, God Didn't Use Evolution as the Mechanism of Creation


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

How do you reach the conclusion from the Bible that no animals died before the Fall of mankind? What Biblical references would you use to support his hypothesis?

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:18-23)

The sin of Adam, according to this passage is universal in its effect.  It is not limited to a spiritual effect on man, but affected man physically as well as the well being of all of created order.  It left creation groaning and longing for the fulness of our redemption.  Paul makes it clear that it was Adam that subjected it to futility, which refers to a perishable, decaying condition.  All of creation was physically affected by the sin of Adam.   The Bible includes death as part of that.   

The Bible teaches that both man and every beast on earth were created by God to be herbivorous:

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.   (Gen 1:29-30)  The word for "beast" in Hebrew refers to every living animal.  They were not originally created to be meat eaters, not even the animals we know of today as predatory animals.  

And this condition will exist again, when the curse is lifted during the Millennium:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (Isa 11:6-7)

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.  (Isa 65:25)

So we see a return to what the world was like when the Lord lifts the curse of the fall and even more so in the New Heavens and the New Earth when sin and death are eradicated completely. 

The Bible doesn't offer a different explanation for physical death related to humans or animals than the fall of man.  That is where all death started.

Quote

How would Adam have any realization of what "death" meant if he had never seen anything die before?

Well, that assumes that this was all God said to Adam.  Most of the conversations that recorded the Bible are truncated and we don't get full benefit of everything that was said.  God is fully capable of communicating what death is to a being created in His image and able to communicate and think immediately upon being created out of the dirt. 

Quote

Adam did eat, and did not die that day. This strongly suggests that the death was spiritual and not physical.

The fact that Adam didn't drop dead that day doesn't mean the effect wasn't physical in nature as well as spiritual.  The process of physical death and decay DID start and Adam did die physically some 960  years later.   He would not have died, or aged at all had he not sinned and the world would not be in state of decay and depravity without the sin of Adam. 
 

Quote

 

Here is the curse - "cursed is the ground for thy sake". The curse is on the ground, that Adam would toil all the days of his life "till thou return unto the ground". It is not as clear on whether or not Adam's death is part of the curse. The passage could very easily be interpreted as "you are going to work hard until you die".

(snip)

It is absolutely supportable from the text. The Romans 5 passage compares death via sin to life via Jesus Christ. It is VERY clear from the passage that the life through Jesus Christ is a spiritual life. As we read the juxtaposition of life and death, the more obvious conclusion is that the death that is being compared to the spiritual life is of a spiritual nature, as well.

 

The problem is that the Bible connects salvation to redemption from physical death AND spiritual death. And it even connects redemption to the restoration of the rest of the created order.   So the problem for you is that you really don't understand the doctrine of salvation.   You approach it in purely spiritual terms but the plan of salvation and redemptive work of Jesus on the cross is reaches out to far more than what is simply spiritual.  It is more than simply about us receiving eternal life.    The redemptive work on the cross affects ALL of creation, not just humanity.

So yes, physical death was part of the curse and trying to limit only to spiritual death is not warranted at all.

Quote

I eagerly anticipate that day, like you do! What a wonderful passage! I just don't think it's valid to automatically assume that the "old earth" was the same as what the "new earth" will be.

It will be the same with the added benefit of the New Jerusalem.   But it will be same perfect, sinless state that existed when God said it was "very good."  God doesn't have a sliding scale in how He measures "very good."   God has one standard and it is perfection.   God can't create imperfection, so the new earth will be as sinless and free of death as the old one. 

Quote

 

Full disclosure here -- I am possibly in the minority among TE adherents. There are a large number, including some that I know well and respect, that see Adam and Eve more as imagery than reality. I support the historical view of Adam and Eve primarily because of the genealogy of Jesus in the Luke (Matthew's genealogy only goes back to Abraham). In any case, there are no claims in the Bible that Adam and Eve were the only people on earth. In fact, the human population on earth is high enough within a generation for the existence of populated "lands". From Genesis chapter 4:

"13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden."

Why would Cain have needed a mark to protect him if only his brothers and sisters were present on the earth?

 

The Bible is very clear that there was only Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-2 prior to the birth of Cain and Abel. Adam  was made from the dirt and Eve was created out of Adam's flesh.   Neither are said to have been born.  Neither have a mother or father.   So the very nature of their origin precludes the existence of other people from whom they were born.   The biblical text simply doesn't allow for that.

As for Cain, the simplest answer is the best.  There are hundreds of years that have past and we know that Adam and Eve had more children.  We assume that all conditions are just like our experience but they are not.  Between chapters 3 and 4 there has been a lot of people being born into the world and while they are the genetic relatives of Cain, it doesn't mean they all lived together and were closely related siblings.  Obviously, the only people on earth at that time were the descendants of the children of Adam and Eve.   Cain would have even taken was of his sisters as his wife.    These are not people that existed before Adam and Eve but were their offspring as well as grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Quote

Wonderful images of what is to come!

But what you are trying to avoid is the fact those passages speak to physical death related to the sin of Adam, and that Jesus' redemptive death was the reversal of the curse of physical death because all of those passages speak our physical restoration.  If sin didn't affect us physically, there would be no reason for salvation to redeem us from what we didn't need redeeming from.   Had God engineered death into us, we would not need to redeemed from the will of God.   That is the problem with how you are basically brushing those passages aside.

Quote

You will see it as a stretch, but try going hypothetical just for a moment and think how God would have described evolution, if He created in such a way. Explaining tissues and cells and organelles and proteins and DNA would have been well beyond the scope of the original audience that His Word was intended for. Why couldn't "dust of the earth" be an oblique and non-explanatory reference to all those things that really aren't critical to establishment of God as the ultimate Creator of all things. The Eve from Adam's "side" could very well be a reference to God's design of a husband and wife together becoming something greater than the individual parts.

No, that simply doesn't follow. First of all, thinking intelligent people know what "dust of the earth" meant.   We know what it means.   So it is not merely a stretch to suggest what you are suggesting; it is simply rejection of the plain teaching of not only Genesis but other parts of the Bible. 

The Bible is self-interpreting.  So if you don't understand what "dust of the earth" means here is what else the Bible says to help you understand:

Therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. (Gen 3:23)

For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust. (Psa 103:14)

The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. (1Co 15:47)

The Bible is clear man was made from the dirt and from the ground.   You simply cannot believe what the Bible  says because for YOU, Evolution is the infallible measure against which the Bible must be judged and you are trying to mold the Bible around Evolution.  And that amounts to nothing but heresy.

Quote

There are quite a few individuals that believe evolution could be applied to all other living organisms, but that mankind was made uniquely and specially. My personal opinion is that God used evolution to make the biological form of humans, but supernaturally imbued a spirit that separates us from the rest of living beings.

Well, making man from the dust of the ground pretty much torpedoes your view.   The Bible is correct and you are wrong.   You can believe what yo want, but the rest of us prefer a more faithful approach to Scripture.

Quote

I know you aren't going to agree with my opinion. That's fine, because I am not going to agree with your opinion, either. But do try to formulate a response without unnecessary personal attacks, please. 

I am not trying to convince you.  I am writing for some other people who need to know why your views are wrong.  I am responding for their sake, not yours.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:18-23)

Your assertion that there was no death anywhere in nature before Adam's sin goes beyond what is stated here. You use this scripture passage as a hint that might support your position, but it is certainly less than conclusive. Let me emphasize - it is never stated in the Bible that animal death is a result of human sin. This position requires interpretation beyond what is actually present in the Bible.

 

27 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (Isa 11:6-7)

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.  (Isa 65:25)

You are making an assumption that the "new earth" will be the same as the original "old earth". This also goes beyond what is written in the Bible.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible is very clear that there was only Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-2 prior to the birth of Cain and Abel.

Is it? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that there were no other people on earth? There is a mention of other populated lands, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says those other people are Adam and Eve's direct lineage. You are only assuming this is the case.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

As for Cain, the simplest answer is the best.  There are hundreds of years that have past

Are you sure about that? The Bible does not say how many years passed between Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden and Cain's murder of Abel.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Between chapters 3 and 4 there has been a lot of people being born into the world and while they are the genetic relatives of Cain, it doesn't mean they all lived together and were closely related siblings.

How do you know this? It certainly isn't because it is what the Bible says.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

But what you are trying to avoid is the fact those passages speak to physical death related to the sin of Adam, and that Jesus' redemptive death was the reversal of the curse of physical death because all of those passages speak our physical restoration.  If sin didn't affect us physically, there would be no reason for salvation to redeem us from what we didn't need redeeming from.   Had God engineered death into us, we would not need to redeemed from the will of God.   That is the problem with how you are basically brushing those passages aside.

I went back and read the verses you posted, but the assertion that our bodies after the return of Jesus will be just like physical bodies before the Fall is entirely supposition. This supposition not directly supported by the passages you listed.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

You simply cannot believe what the Bible  says because for YOU, Evolution is the infallible measure against which the Bible must be judged and you are trying to mold the Bible around Evolution.  And that amounts to nothing but heresy.

No, evolutionary science is certainly fallible, and I could very well be wrong about what I believe. What I KNOW is that one day I will be with my loving Creator forever and who was wrong or right will make virtually no difference.

As I have said before, as different as you think your theology is from mine, we are really very similar:

1.  God created everything that exists.

2.  God created mankind specifically for communing with Him.

3.  Adam and Eve sinned and the curse of sin was laid on all humanity.

4.  Jesus Christ, who was God in the form of man, was sent to earth as a sacrifice for the sin of ALL mankind.

5.  Jesus led a sinless life, died in replacement for all mankind, and came back to life, thus conquering death.

6.  We have the opportunity to receive God's free gift of life by believing and confessing who Jesus Christ was and what he did.

7.  One day, Jesus will come again and those of us that have accepted His free gift will be ushered into a new, eternal life with our Creator.

There are numerous other theological points that we would share, but I think others could see my point. While we may disagree on the length of time of God's creative work, we agree on points that are much more important. So although you think what I believe is heresy, what we believe about core doctrine is very much the same. 

Note -- I do believe there is figurative language in the Genesis account (ie, "dust of the earth). A belief in figurative language DOES NOT mean that I think the Bible is in error. Do not try to tell me what I believe, as you have so frequently done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Your assertion that there was no death anywhere in nature before Adam's sin goes beyond what is stated here. You use this scripture passage as a hint that might support your position, but it is certainly less than conclusive. Let me emphasize - it is never stated in the Bible that animal death is a result of human sin. This position requires interpretation beyond what is actually present in the Bible.

Again, all we need to do is look at what the earth looks like without sin in other parts of the Bible and there is nothing that indicates any kind of death at all. The Bible doesn't parse between animal death, human death, or spiritual death.  That is what YOU must do in order to make room for Evolution.  Stuff like this is why I notice that staunch atheistic Evolutionists are far more honest about what the Bible says on these matters than people who hold to your position.  It's why Dawkins can say that Evolution makes an Atheist a more fulfilled Atheist.   They understand that the Bible's claims about death and sin are impossible to reconcile with Evolution.  

Quote

You are making an assumption that the "new earth" will be the same as the original "old earth". This also goes beyond what is written in the Bible.

No, I am going off of what the Bible says about what the new earth will be like and it is exactly what the old earth was, sinless and perfect.  I have given examples of how the Bible describes what is coming when sin is eradicated, including predator animals returning to an herbivorous state.

Quote

Is it? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that there were no other people on earth? There is a mention of other populated lands, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says those other people are Adam and Eve's direct lineage. You are only assuming this is the case.

No, I am going off of the available data from the Bible.   For there to be other people, Adam and Eve had to be born.  Adam was made from the dirt and God took Eve out of Adam.  There is no record in the Bible of their birth and God's description of their origin means that there were no other people.

Quote

Are you sure about that? The Bible does not say how many years passed between Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden and Cain's murder of Abel.

Absolutely sure, but even if you want to argue that there was not much time past, Cain still married a biological relative. 

Quote

How do you know this? It certainly isn't because it is what the Bible says.

Yes, it is. 

Quote

I went back and read the verses you posted, but the assertion that our bodies after the return of Jesus will be just like physical bodies before the Fall is entirely supposition. This supposition not directly supported by the passages you listed.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (1Co 15:20-23)

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (1Co 15:51-55)

We will be incorruptible and immortal.  It is up to you to prove that Adam was mortal, corruptible.  First you have to disprove the Bible's claim that Adam was made from the ground.

 

Quote

No, evolutionary science is certainly fallible, and I could very well be wrong about what I believe. What I KNOW is that one day I will be with my loving Creator forever and who was wrong or right will make virtually no difference.

It makes a huge difference, now.   

Quote


As I have said before, as different as you think your theology is from mine, we are really very similar:

 

LOL, not we are not similar at all.  My theology is far superior.

Quote

1.  God created everything that exists. 

Not if you hold to Evolution.  If you hold to Evolution, what God created no longer exists, if any of it exists at all.  What God originally created died out a long time ago. 

Quote

2.  God created mankind specifically for communing with Him.

No, God created us for His glory.

 

Quote

3.  Adam and Eve sinned and the curse of sin was laid on all humanity.

No, it was the Sin of Adam (Eve is not blamed) who brought sin and death in both spiritual and physical manifestation on teh whole world, the entire created order, not just humanity and the effect of sin has been universal and the world is groaning and waiting for sin to be eradicated and for us to enter the final stage of our redemption.

Quote

 

4.  Jesus Christ, who was God in the form of man, was sent to earth as a sacrifice for the sin of ALL mankind.

5.  Jesus led a sinless life, died in replacement for all mankind, and came back to life, thus conquering death.

6.  We have the opportunity to receive God's free gift of life by believing and confessing who Jesus Christ was and what he did.

7.  One day, Jesus will come again and those of us that have accepted His free gift will be ushered into a new, eternal life with our Creator.

 

None of that is true if Evolution is true.   Sin doesn't exist in evolution as death and murder preexist the Fall in the Garden and have always been part of the human experience for millions of years.  That means what we call sin is really just another spoke in the wheel of Evolution.   It means that Jesus' death on the cross is completely meaningless.  

Quote

There are numerous other theological points that we would share, but I think others could see my point. While we may disagree on the length of time of God's creative work, we agree on points that are much more important. So although you think what I believe is heresy, what we believe about core doctrine is very much the same. 

No, what that demonstrates is that you believe that the plan of salvation is disconnected from origins.   You appear to believe that that as long as one believes the right things about Jesus, that what he or she believes about Genesis doesn't matter.  And that is a fallacy.   Teh Gospel is predicated on a correct understanding of Genesis 1-3.   You cannot have a coherent Gospel message if you take Genesis 1-3 and try to force it through the Evolution mold.  It simply doesn't work. 

 

Quote

Note -- I do believe there is figurative language in the Genesis account (ie, "dust of the earth).

Yes, and there is no textual basis for that kind of textual argument.   AND the rest of the Bible doesn't agree with that.   Genesis 3 tells us that Adam worked "the ground" from which he was taken and I Cor. 15:47 also states that Adam came from the earth and from dust.  The Bible takes it literally and that is God inspired text and so if you say something different than God you are calling God a liar.   God means for it to be taken literally.   

 

Quote

A belief in figurative language DOES NOT mean that I think the Bible is in error.

It means YOU are in error.  It means your error is both theological and textual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

47 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible doesn't parse between animal death, human death, or spiritual death.  That is what YOU must do in order to make room for Evolution.

That's your claim, but to support it, you need  your own interpretation of what IS NOT in the Bible.

48 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Absolutely sure, but even if you want to argue that there was not much time past, Cain still married a biological relative. 

You are absolutely sure? Why? It isn't Biblical, what other means are you using to be "absolutely sure"?

 

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Between chapters 3 and 4 there has been a lot of people being born into the world and while they are the genetic relatives of Cain, it doesn't mean they all lived together and were closely related siblings.

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

How do you know this? It certainly isn't because it is what the Bible says.

 

51 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, it is. 

Please provide the Biblical reference for this.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

We will be incorruptible and immortal.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

It is up to you to prove that Adam was mortal, corruptible.  First you have to disprove the Bible's claim that Adam was made from the ground.

Why? All I said is that you are making an assumption that bodies in the Garden of Eden are the same as bodies will be on the "new earth". I don't have to disprove anything to point out that you are making an assumption.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

It makes a huge difference, now.

How so?

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Not if you hold to Evolution.  If you hold to Evolution, what God created no longer exists, if any of it exists at all.  What God originally created died out a long time ago. 

I hold to creation through the tool of evolution. That doesn't mean God didn't create everything that exists. If God created over a 144 hour period about 6,000 years ago, that doesn't change the fact that everything on earth died.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

No, God created us for His glory.

I should have phrased a little differently. God created mankind specifically, and with the capability of communing with him. Revelation 4:11 actually says "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it was the Sin of Adam (Eve is not blamed) who brought sin and death in both spiritual and physical manifestation on teh whole world, the entire created order, not just humanity and the effect of sin has been universal and the world is groaning and waiting for sin to be eradicated and for us to enter the final stage of our redemption.

I'll accept this correction and addition.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

None of that is true if Evolution is true.   Sin doesn't exist in evolution as death and murder preexist the Fall in the Garden and have always been part of the human experience for millions of years.  That means what we call sin is really just another spoke in the wheel of Evolution.   It means that Jesus' death on the cross is completely meaningless.

This is only true in your view of evolution. Remember that Adam is assigned the first sin, although Eve "transgressed" before Adam (I Timothy 2:13-14). Sin is only possible when moral accountability is present. I believe what made Adam and Eve special from the rest of creation was the presence of a spirit that did have moral accountability. I completely (and obviously) reject the idea that Jesus' death is meaningless.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

No, what that demonstrates is that you believe that the plan of salvation is disconnected from origins.

You are telling me what I believe again, which is obviously prone to error. Here it is in a nutshell - Adam sinned, sin became the curse of all mankind (and the rest of creation), a Savior was needed, Jesus Christ would eventually be that Savior. What is it that I am missing?

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Genesis 3 tells us that Adam worked "the ground" from which he was taken and I Cor. 15:47 also states that Adam came from the earth and from dust.

Where do you think the elements that made Adam came from? They come from the ground in either scenario.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Stuff like this is why I notice that staunch atheistic Evolutionists are far more honest about what the Bible says on these matters than people who hold to your position.  It's why Dawkins can say that Evolution makes an Atheist a more fulfilled Atheist.   They understand that the Bible's claims about death and sin are impossible to reconcile with Evolution.  

So you're using the great theologian, Richard Dawkins, to support your argument? Interesting tactic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That's your claim, but to support it, you need  your own interpretation of what IS NOT in the Bible.

No, I used what is in the Bible to answer the original question.  Romans 8 tells us that all of creation is a state of decay and is waiting for the fullness of the redemption of man.  That state of decay means that creation, since the sin of Adam has been in a death spiral and Paul says that it is due to the fact that creation was subjected to that condition on account of Adam's disobedience.   I am going by the available data that is in Scripture.   Paul tells us in Rom. 5:14 that death reigned from Adam to Moses.  Death started with Adam.  It didn't start millions of years before Adam, but started from Adam.  And it includes both spiritual death and physical death.  The text does not qualify or parse between physical or spiritual death.

Quote

You are absolutely sure? Why? It isn't Biblical, what other means are you using to be "absolutely sure"?

We know that the Bible is not a minute by minute account of events.   You can have a lot of time transpire between two verses or in some cases even within one verse.   Gen. 1-11 represents about 2,500 years even though all 11 chapters can be read in an hour or less. So, we know that events are truncated in the biblical account.  Just a little commonsense goes a long way.   When people are living 700, 800, 900 years, it stands to reason that  it is possible for those people to have far more children than they would have under our circumstances today.  The potential for huge families like that over hundreds of years.   It will be the same during the millennial reign of Christ, a 100 year old person will be considered extremely young.  We tend to forget that life was far different than what is in our experience, today.

Quote

Why?

You are the one claiming that Adam was corruptible and mortal just like we are and subject to death just as we are. 

 

Quote

All I said is that you are making an assumption that bodies in the Garden of Eden are the same as bodies will be on the "new earth". I don't have to disprove anything to point out that you are making an assumption.

No, I am not making assumptions at all.   YOU are the one assuming that Adam and Eve were mortal, that they were actually not the first people and a lot of stuff like that which is not in the Bible and no way to get from the Bible.  

The Bible teaches in Romans 8 that both we and the rest of creation are in a perishable state of decay due to the sin of Adam.   So I don't have to rely on assumptions.   You have to rely on muddying the waters about what the Bible says in order make room for Evolution.   But I can simply operate from faithful handling of Scripture.

Quote

I hold to creation through the tool of evolution.

Which is completely oxymoronic.

 

Quote

That doesn't mean God didn't create everything that exists.

It does mean God didn't create everything that exists if you are operate from an understanding of the nature of Evolution and what the theory actually claims.   

 

Quote

If God created over a 144 hour period about 6,000 years ago, that doesn't change the fact that everything on earth died.

If Evolution is true, the original species God created no longer exist.  Everything would be entirely different now and there would be species that God never created in existence, and the species God did create are now extinct.   

Quote

I should have phrased a little differently. God created mankind specifically, and with the capability of communing with him. Revelation 4:11 actually says "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

He did not create us to commune with Him.   He created us to glorify Him, which is what Revelation 4:11 says.   Why did God wait until Adam and Eve to commune with us, if that was his goal?  Why didn't He try to communicate with ALL of the evolved humans you believe existed contemporaneously with Adam and Eve?   If millions of people were already on the earth when Adam and Eve came on the scene, why only speak to Adam if He wants to commune with everyone?  If that is why all of us here?    

And why are only Adam's descendants the ones who qualify for salvation?  I mean, if you read through the NT, sin was passed down from Adam to his descendants.  That means there is a separate line of humanity that is not descended from Adam that is either not sinful or if they are, they are outside the line that qualifies for salvation.  And how would we ascertain who belongs to that line and who doesn't?

Quote

This is only true in your view of evolution.

No, that is what Evolution actually means.   If Evolution is true, what we call "sin" isn't sin.  It is evolutionary behavior necessary for the process of Evolution.  In Evolution we are just higher animals.  Humans are no more special than any other animal.  That is what many who actually live out an evolutionary worldview teach.   

 

Quote

Remember that Adam is assigned the first sin, although Eve "transgressed" before Adam (I Timothy 2:13-14). Sin is only possible when moral accountability is present. I believe what made Adam and Eve special from the rest of creation was the presence of a spirit that did have moral accountability.

No, that is not what made them special.   Adam and Eve were created in God's image and in His likeness.   They are in a totally different class of being.   They are a special creation on THAT basis.   Your view has been that Adam and Eve were special from the rest of humanity, which is false teaching.  Your view is that sin was defined until Adam sinned meaning that what we call "sin" was likely going on for millions of years and God waited that long before Adam Eve came on the picture to communicate with mankind.

Quote

I completely (and obviously) reject the idea that Jesus' death is meaningless.

If murder preexisted Adam and Eve, then what the Bible calls sin, isn't sin.   It would mean that murder, and what we call sexual immorality isn't really "immoral."  It is simply the natural means of populating the earth and propagating the species.   All of that would have been going on, because what we call "sin" would never have been defined or restricted for millions of years of Evolution that God is "using." 

Why would God use those things to create with and compromise His holiness for millions of years and then suddenly change and hate the very things that are part of the evolutionary process and tell us that those things are sinful on the basis of a state of holiness that He previously didn't adhere to?  

Quote

You are telling me what I believe again, which is obviously prone to error. Here it is in a nutshell - Adam sinned, sin became the curse of all mankind (and the rest of creation), a Savior was needed, Jesus Christ would eventually be that Savior. What is it that I am missing?

At the very least, you are missing an understanding of the doctrine of salvation and how it relates to Genesis 1-3.  And you are missing an understanding of the holiness of God and how Evolution would mean that God's holiness would be compromised.

Quote

Where do you think the elements that made Adam came from? They come from the ground in either scenario.

The point you are missing is that Adam was not born.  And Neither was Eve.   Adam was made directly from the ground, which means that Adam had no parents and was not the product of Evolution.  It means that Eve was not born either.  God took some of Adam's flesh and from that, he created Eve.  Neither of them were born, neither have any parents.   They were taken from ground and existed as perfect, sinless human beings.  You keep trying to skirt around that.

Quote

So you're using the great theologian, Richard Dawkins, to support your argument? Interesting tactic...

No, I am saying that Atheists are more objective and honest about what the Bible says and they are more honest and objective about what Evolution teaches.   Christians who are desperate to compromise and want to live on the world's side of the cross are trying to take what is an Atheistic theory and Christianize it because they have not really surrendered everything to the Lord and don't really believe the biblical record.  They want Evolution and the Bible  on their terms, to pick and choose the parts they will believe and then modify and re-tool the parts they can't fit into their carnal worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,796
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,264
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

This thread is a good example of where does your foundation lie... evolution is a foundation of sand where man is trying to make the Bible fit in the opinion of man through the lies of that system... lies yes for not one scrap of real proof as info can be found to support it. OR The Word of God which is a rock upon resonance of truth at every turn is seen and proof is in the creation itself- just like God has said Rom 1:18-22...

  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

If evolution were true, then Adam and Eve didn't exist except in type

God can work through natural means (they are His!) and miraculous means. With God as Creator, one does not preclude the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

This thread is a good example of where does your foundation lie.

My foundation is on Jesus Christ. He has bought my life with His own (1 Corinthians 7:23). I owe Him everything. I don’t owe evolution anything. I would easily discard it if there were mounds of scientific evidence that did not support it, rather than the reverse.

Grace and Peace, brothers and sisters, I’ll be taking the rest of the day off from forum-watching.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

God can work through natural means (they are His!) and miraculous means. With God as Creator, one does not preclude the other.

God works through natural means, but not through naturalism.   

Evolution is a naturalistic, both philosophically and methodologically.  Naturalism precludes God from being involved at all.   That is why Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible.  The entire theory is predicated on a wholly naturalistic, impersonal, unguided process.  So it cannot be the case that God used Evolution as Evolution is based on no intelligent impetus.   It cannot be impersonal and personal at the same time.  It cannot be naturalistic and supernatural at the same time.

The Theory of  Evolution  came about BEFORE there was any evidence for it.  Darwin admits that he had no evidence, but surmised that evidence would surface.   And that is not science, not by a long shot.   The fact that the "theory" showed up before any evidence was around, discredits it as a scientific theory.  Furthermore, it means that the so-called "evidence"  is based on assuming Evolution is true and then interpreting the evidence to fit an untested theory that doesn't even qualify scientifically as a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  249
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   8
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/07/2007
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/19/2018 at 7:33 PM, shiloh357 said:

The Theory of  Evolution  came about BEFORE there was any evidence for it.  Darwin admits that he had no evidence, but surmised that evidence would surface.   And that is not science, not by a long shot.   The fact that the "theory" showed up before any evidence was around, discredits it as a scientific theory.  Furthermore, it means that the so-called "evidence"  is based on assuming Evolution is true and then interpreting the evidence to fit an untested theory that doesn't even qualify scientifically as a theory.

Hello worthy members. Long time away. Hope ye are all keeping well. 

Albert Einsteins General Theory of Relativity was developed between 1909 and 1915 and published in 1915. It wasn't proved by evidence until 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington during a solar eclipse which proved that light does indeed bend around massive objects (gravitational lensing). So according to your logic because the Theory of General Relativity had no evidence it discredits it as a scientific theory. Look how that panned out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...