God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Paul James said:

God was there when He created the world, and He personally gave Moses the information to have a written record of how He did it.   Right up to the 19th Century, no one doubted the literal history of Genesis - until the devil inspired liberal theologians to ask, "Did God really say it?"  merely repeating what Satan said to Eve in the garden: "Has God said?"

The real reason why evolution became popular is that the liberal theologians did not want to include the God of the Bible in the creation, because if they did, they would have to account to Him one day for the way they lived, and because they knew that their personal morals left a lot to be desired they dreamed up a God whom they felt comfortable with.  Therefore liberal evolutionary theologians have a different meaning for God, Christ, faith, etc., to who the God of the Bible really is.  Their "Christ of faith" is not the historical Jesus of the Bible, and their "faith" is existential "faith in faith" (if I believe it, then it is true for me).

There are those who discount a literal view of Genesis will say, "That is just your interpretation".   That comes from an 18th Century "enlightened" atheistic philosopher who taught that truth is no longer objective but subjective.  So, instead of saying that something is true because it is true, they say that something is true if we believe it is true for us.  So, a person following that godless philosophy will say, "You may believe that Genesis 1-3 is true for you, and that is your interpretation, but that doesn't have to be my interpretation".  So a godless philosopher will say, just as Satan said to Eve in the garden, "God didn't really mean to say it literally - He really meant something else, and I'll give you my interpretation of what He said."

What God put into the Bible is true. God put a LOT of figurative language into the Bible, even into the creation account. Consider the serpent in Genesis 3. Is this Satan, a literal serpent, or something else? The literal language of the Bible says it was the serpent 3:1-5. Did God create an animal that knew right from wrong, and tempted Adam and Eve into choosing wrong? That sure doesn't fit the idea of a perfect creation, or even a "very good" one. Here is figurative language. Another example of figurative language is found in Genesis 2:18-20. God said "It is not good for man to be alone". First, how is it not good if God's creation was "very good"? "Not good" does not match with "very good" - figurative language. In the same passage, God brings the livestock, birds, and wild animals to Adam, but verse 21 says "But for Adam, no suitable helper was found." I highly doubt God brought the livestock, birds, and wild animals to Adam to try to set him up with a good helper - more figurative language. 

See if you can find any fault in the theology of my view of Genesis 1-3. I will humbly consider all meaningful corrections.

1. God is Creator of the universe and everything in it.

2. God culminated His creation with mankind, that He made specially for His pleasure.

3. God made mankind in a way that we could commune with God in His presence.

4. Adam and Eve chose their own way, instead of God's.

5. Ever since Adam and Eve, mankind has been corrupted by sin and our relationship with our Creator is broken.

6. God promised a solution. It is not spelled out in detail here, but one can see the promise of Jesus Christ.

[Paul James]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

What God put into the Bible is true. God put a LOT of figurative language into the Bible, even into the creation account. Consider the serpent in Genesis 3. Is this Satan, a literal serpent, or something else? The literal language of the Bible says it was the serpent 3:1-5. Did God create an animal that knew right from wrong, and tempted Adam and Eve into choosing wrong? That sure doesn't fit the idea of a perfect creation, or even a "very good" one. Here is figurative language. Another example of figurative language is found in Genesis 2:18-20. God said "It is not good for man to be alone". First, how is it not good if God's creation was "very good"? "Not good" does not match with "very good" - figurative language. In the same passage, God brings the livestock, birds, and wild animals to Adam, but verse 21 says "But for Adam, no suitable helper was found." I highly doubt God brought the livestock, birds, and wild animals to Adam to try to set him up with a good helper - more figurative language. 

See if you can find any fault in the theology of my view of Genesis 1-3. I will humbly consider all meaningful corrections.

1. God is Creator of the universe and everything in it.

2. God culminated His creation with mankind, that He made specially for His pleasure.

3. God made mankind in a way that we could commune with God in His presence.

4. Adam and Eve chose their own way, instead of God's.

5. Ever since Adam and Eve, mankind has been corrupted by sin and our relationship with our Creator is broken.

6. God promised a solution. It is not spelled out in detail here, but one can see the promise of Jesus Christ.

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then the foundation for the gospel of Christ is destroyed, and there is no assurance of salvation. 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then the foundation for the gospel of Christ is destroyed, and there is no assurance of salvation. 

Can you show me where my theology is in error? I see you did not even attempt to try the first time.

I'm certain that the Bible teaches "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". You can decide whether your assertion follows this clear explanation.

[Paul James]

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Can you show me where my theology is in error? I see you did not even attempt to try the first time.

I'm certain that the Bible teaches "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". You can decide whether your assertion follows this clear explanation.

If you don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history of what really happened, then how can you be sure that the Jesus you are believing in is the Jesus of the Bible?   The Jesus of the Bible believed and taught that Genesis 1-3 was actual literal history, and did not teach theistic evolution at all.  So, if you are trusting in a Jesus who doesn't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history and that the world was created through theistic evolution, then are you trusting the right Jesus?  Food for thought.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Paul James said:

The Jesus of the Bible believed and taught that Genesis 1-3 was actual literal history

Let's focus on this. Jesus taught a literal Adam and Eve, and I accept that. You will have to demonstrate what part of the New Testament confirms your assertion. To this point, your defense of a strictly literal account (even though you accept figurative language in the account), is lacking in Biblical defense.

Edited May 3, 2020 by one.opinion

[Paul James]

41 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Let's focus on this. Jesus taught a literal Adam and Eve, and I accept that. You will have to demonstrate what part of the New Testament confirms your assertion. To this point, your defense of a strictly literal account (even though you accept figurative language in the account), is lacking in Biblical defense.

If you believe in theistic evolution then you are robbing God of His glory and power and saying that He cannot create a whole universe in an instant of time if He decides to do it that way.   Theistic evolution is the shoe-horning of atheistic theory into the Scripture.   It also presents a cruel and heartless God who caused animals to suffer and die over millions of years before Adam.  It also makes God out to be a liar, when at the end of the 6th day He looked over His creation and saw that it was "very good", well formed, totally functional and a perfect paradise.  It makes Paul out to be a liar when he said that sin entered the world through Adam, and death along with sin.

It also undermines the gospel and makes Jesus the second Adam meaningless, when Paul said that the first Adam brought death into the world, but the second Adam brings life.  And that the death of Christ on the cross is meaningless because He died to redeem us from sin and death, but if death did not come with Adam, then what did Christ's dead redeem us from from?

It also makes the new heavens and earth meaningless because if struggle and death has always been part of God's creation, then we face millions of years of future struggle and death in His new heaven and earth.

So, theistic evolution undermines the whole foundation of Biblical Christian faith.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Paul James

[Paul James]

Just now, Paul James said:

Theistic evolution is an atheistic lie.

 

[one.opinion]

On 5/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, Paul James said:

If you believe in theistic evolution then you are robbing God of His glory and power and saying that He cannot create a whole universe in an instant of time if He decides to do it that way.

Not in the slightest. God is the Creator of all physical reality. He could have created everything instantly. However, the evidence He left us strongly suggests that He did not. My appreciation of His power is not diminished in the least when I observe the incredible intricacy of His creation.

[one.opinion]

On 5/2/2020 at 8:33 PM, Paul James said:

Theistic evolution is an atheistic lie.

The obvious contradiction in terms reveals your unwillingness to consider other viewpoints.

[Paul James]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Not in the slightest. God is the Creator of all physical reality. He could have created everything instantly. However, the evidence He left us strongly suggests that He did not. My appreciation of His power is not diminished in the least when I observe the incredible intricacy of His creation.

If you want to team up with atheists and their godless lies, then so be it be on your own head!