Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Maybe [reality] and its perception has become undetectable to those who have lost touch.   God uses specific words {dust-form-spit-turns to clay} when claiming His [creating] method.   How one can mistranslate that for their own view and vision is clearly a reference to a lack of comprehension.

I would suggest that the genre of the early part of Genesis is misinterpreted.

[Guest kingdombrat]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

I would suggest that the genre of the early part of Genesis is misinterpreted.

When Moses wrote these words down, had they been incorrect, doesn't it seem logical that God would have made this known to Moses to correct it?

[Justin Adams]

As I have previously mentioned, there are no partly formed critters or any remains that show this. No three legged goats balancing on the mountain crags, or blind eagles that cannot se their prey. Or fish with no gills or the many thousands of partly formed creatures. Over the 'millions of years' the whole earth would be a festering grave.

Evolution on that scale would leave a quagmire of half made critters.

My God is NOT like that!!

OH. And to answer the OP...  what is the question really about?

Edited January 25, 2021 by Justin Adams

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

When Moses wrote these words down, had they been incorrect, doesn't it seem logical that God would have made this known to Moses to correct it?

We, being so far removed from the time of authorship, are the ones misinterpreting, not God, not Moses, and not the original audience.

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 1/25/2021 at 4:00 AM, Justin Adams said:

OH. And to answer the OP...  what is the question really about?

Theoretically speaking here, and also factually speaking here, sin could not be passed through Evolution.   Would sin pass from the stages of single cell to multiple cell organisms and then eventually to hominids?  [NO]!   We know God created Adam how it's explained in the Bible in order for Adam to be able to pass [SIN] down throughout humanity.   

 

This is what it's all about.

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 1/25/2021 at 7:47 AM, teddyv said:

We, being so far removed from the time of authorship, are the ones misinterpreting, not God, not Moses, and not the original audience.

Seeing that the Egyptians were knowledgeable with Mathematics, Engineering, and other general sciences (pyramids and their other structures we can still observe today), alerts me to believe if Evolution was the true path Moses would have understood.   After all, [Moses], was trained in these same education systems as the Egyptians and was being prepped to one day become Pharaoh.   So Moses was [highly intelligent].   He would clearly know the difference between dust/spit/clay and the process involving time like Evolution.   Let us not forget here, it was Moses who took the symbols of the Egyptian Hieroglyphs and turned them into the Hebrew Alphabet and created a Language for the Hebrew People's.   Moses was [brilliant], skilled, educated, naturally and instinctively intelligent.   He would have understood Evolution if God told him that's His creative process.

 

Therefore, I disagree!

[Justin Adams]

25 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Theoretically speaking here, and also factually speaking here, sin could not be passed through Evolution.   Would sin pass from the stages of single cell to multiple cell organisms and then eventually to hominids?  [NO]!   We know God created Adam how it's explained in the Bible in order for Adam to be able to pass [SIN] down throughout humanity.   

 

This is what it's all about.

Oh, I see. Well sin is NOT inherited. Just death. We all are individually answerable for our OWN sins and misdeeds. Otherwise, like the RCC had to do, you must invent things like the perpetual sinlessness of Mary. The doctrine of original sin as per Augustine (he would know) and therefore the RCC, is not coherent and is in error, considerable error I think.

And to add insult to injury, the Calvinist TULIP ideas take it many steps further and lead to horrific ideas.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Justin Adams

[David1701]

On 1/24/2021 at 10:44 PM, teddyv said:

I would suggest that the genre of the early part of Genesis is misinterpreted.

That's often true.  Many people seem to think that it's allegorical or symbolic, without a shred of evidence, and entirely contrary to the Hebrew form of writing involved (narrative).

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Oh, I see. Well sin is NOT inherited. Just death. We all are individually answerable for our OWN sins and misdeeds. Otherwise, like the RCC had to do, you must invent things like the perpetual sinlessness of Mary. The doctrine of original sin as per Augustine (he would know) and therefore the RCC, is not coherent and is in error, considerable error I think.

And to add insult to injury, the Calvinist TULIP ideas take it many steps further and lead to horrific ideas.

You cannot take a clean thing out of an unclean.  Adam did not have cleanness to pass on, after he'd sinned.

[David1701]

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

You cannot take a clean thing out of an unclean.  Adam did not have cleanness to pass on, after he'd sinned.

In answer to your question mark response, @Justin Adams, we all inherit Adam's fallen nature.

Eph. 2:1-3 (EMTV)

 1 And you He made alive, who were dead in your transgressions and sins,
  2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience,
  3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the senses, and were by nature children of wrath, as also the rest.

In our nature, unless God makes us born again, we are all children of wrath.