[_ Old Earth _] A question in PM

[EricTheBaptist]

Yep. Nothing about reproducing according to their kinds. And note that God agrees with scientists about how life was produced. It was brought forth by the earth.

And no, you don't have to do it exactly the way God did it. You rest on the seventh day as we know them today, not as God described them.

The Bible is clear about its word, you should rest on the seventh. I'll quote my church deccan "You either believe it for what it is, or you don't."


Maybe because the land does produce animals? It just doesn't evolve them like you think. God also made the animals according to their kinds. Why do you think that there isn't deer with 5 heads or something of that nature?

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible is clear about its word, you should rest on the seventh. I'll quote my church deccan "You either believe it for what it is, or you don't."

And yet he questions God's word in Genesis.

Maybe because the land does produce animals?

Scientists are just catching up. Abiogenesis is a fairly new idea for science, but not for God.

God also made the animals according to their kinds.

But not the way you want Him to have done it.

Why do you think that there isn't deer with 5 heads or something of that nature?

Turns out evolution takes care of that kind of thing. God is a lot smarter than you think.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

And yet he questions God's word in Genesis.
No, he agrees with six day creation.


Scientists are just catching up. Abiogenesis is a fairly new idea for science, but not for God.
Animals die, go to the ground and are raised again eventually.


But not the way you want Him to have done it.
Let's get something straight here, Theistic Evolution is merely a theory. Despite contradicting claims you linger on it. To treat me like an idiot, is not how a debate works.


Turns out evolution takes care of that kind of thing. God is a lot smarter than you think.

Mutations can make anything happen.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Also, it would seem like your interpreting scripture to fit your own claims.

There's one last point I want to make in response to this question and that is, the biblical account of creation specifically states that God created living creatures according to their own kinds. As confirmed by science, the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog. The DNA of each creature is uniquely programmed for reproduction after its own kind. (NOT MINE)

Apparently I'm not the only one interpreting this differently.

 

[jasoncran]

:toofunnylol

the shabat of eons.

man if that were true.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And yet he questions God's word in Genesis.

No, he agrees with six day creation.

The literal six-day creation is a modern doctrine, first presented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. Even Baptists acknowledged millions of years of Earth prior to that.

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.†We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.
19th Century Baptist leader Charles Spurgeon
The Power of the Holy Ghost, June 17, 1855

Barbarian observes:
Scientists are just catching up. Abiogenesis is a fairly new idea for science, but not for God.

Animals die, go to the ground and are raised again eventually.

No. Animals are not reborn.

Let's get something straight here, Theistic Evolution is merely a theory.

So is gravity, but don't go jumping off tall buildings. Actually, gravity is not as well documented as evolution. We can observe gravity and we can observe evolution, but we know why evolution works, while we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

Despite contradicting claims you linger on it. To treat me like an idiot, is not how a debate works.

The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out evolution takes care of that kind of thing. God is a lot smarter than you think.

Mutations can make anything happen.

If that were true, we'd see every imaginable kind of living thing. And we don't.

 

[Barbarian]

There's one last point I want to make in response to this question and that is, the biblical account of creation specifically states that God created living creatures according to their own kinds.

Still does. Every now and then a new species appears. As I said, the only issue is that you don't approve of the way He does it.

As confirmed by science, the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog.

But as also predicted by science, their respective DNAs show that they are more closely related to each other than either is related to fish, and that all of these vertebrates are more closely related to each other than any of them is to a bumblebee. That's one consequence of common descent.

The DNA of each creature is uniquely programmed for reproduction after its own kind. (NOT MINE)

No programming required. God is the Creator, not some "programmer."

Apparently I'm not the only one interpreting this differently.

Some Christians see it your way. Most don't.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Still does. Every now and then a new species appears. As I said, the only issue is that you don't approve of the way He does it.
Brought this argument of yours up with my pastor his response is "Two cows make a calf." he also preached on how people manipulate scripture to fit their own interpretations. What your doing is the opposite of exegesis, where you read scripture and interpret it to fit a view.


But as also predicted by science, their respective DNAs show that they are more closely related to each other than either is related to fish, and that all of these vertebrates are more closely related to each other than any of them is to a bumblebee. That's one consequence of common descent.
Thanks for the Biology lesson?


No programming required. God is the Creator, not some "programmer."
Metaphoric.


Some Christians see it your way. Most don't.

Those keeping true to scripture see it my way.

 

[Barbarian]

That is not the Christian way. And that's all that needs to be said about it.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

That is not the Christian way. And that's all that needs to be said about it.

I'm not very smart on science or anything, if you REALLY want to debate then go to this site.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/

I guarantee you'll have yourself a challenge if you debate there.

 

[jasoncran]

Barbarian observes:
And yet he questions God's word in Genesis.



The literal six-day creation is a modern doctrine, first presented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. Even Baptists acknowledged millions of years of Earth prior to that.

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.†We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.
19th Century Baptist leader Charles Spurgeon
The Power of the Holy Ghost, June 17, 1855

Barbarian observes:
Scientists are just catching up. Abiogenesis is a fairly new idea for science, but not for God.



No. Animals are not reborn.



So is gravity, but don't go jumping off tall buildings. Actually, gravity is not as well documented as evolution. We can observe gravity and we can observe evolution, but we know why evolution works, while we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.



The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out evolution takes care of that kind of thing. God is a lot smarter than you think.



If that were true, we'd see every imaginable kind of living thing. And we don't.

barb, did good plan for murder of man as men that are dated prior to the existance given of adam have commited murder and had a culture.

so that means violates the the command by the pope

6700 BCE A man dies in the vicinity of what is now known as the Columbia River. In 1996 CE his bones will be found almost entirely intact and he will be called Kennewick Man. A projectile point will be found embedded in his pelvis, but his bone grows around it, indicating that he survived the wound.

http://www.fsmitha.com/time/timeline2.htm
when did adam live? and how long off is the jewish genealogy then?

according to jewish traditions the years which they keep pretty well it the creation even happened near(they take it literal and have been doing that for some time)

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/526875/jewish/Years.htm

so they are wrong?

hmm i take their word on their culture over any gentile or the rcc's pope.



if that is the facts then barb then

 

[Barbarian]

barb, did good plan for murder of man as men that are dated prior to the existance given of adam have commited murder and had a culture.

Don't know what you mean. But no one knows exactly when Adam lived.

so that means violates the the command by the pope

There was no Pope until Jesus gave him authority.

6700 BCE A man dies in the vicinity of what is now known as the Columbia River. In 1996 CE his bones will be found almost entirely intact and he will be called Kennewick Man. A projectile point will be found embedded in his pelvis, but his bone grows around it, indicating that he survived the wound.
http://www.fsmitha.com/time/timeline2.htm

when did adam live? and how long off is the jewish genealogy then?

No one knows, really. But it seems that Jewish thought is divided on the subject...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html

 

[zeke]

The literal six-day creation is a modern doctrine, first presented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Think again my friend - you are mistaken.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. ~ The Early Church on Creation, James R. Mook​

 

[zeke]

But no one knows exactly when Adam lived.

Did Adam have a father "after the flesh"? If yes was his father man or beast of the field?

 

[jasoncran]

Don't know what you mean. But no one knows exactly when Adam lived.



There was no Pope until Jesus gave him authority.

6700 BCE A man dies in the vicinity of what is now known as the Columbia River. In 1996 CE his bones will be found almost entirely intact and he will be called Kennewick Man. A projectile point will be found embedded in his pelvis, but his bone grows around it, indicating that he survived the wound.
http://www.fsmitha.com/time/timeline2.htm



No one knows, really. But it seems that Jewish thought is divided on the subject...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html

when i or stovebolts mentioned judiasm its only in reference to the ancient sages who help put the bible together and by oral tradition taugh the law.

so find them and tell us what they said. modern judaism isnt true to them at times.

so of it is and i will quote them. sorry i should have made that clearer.

 

[Barbarian]

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. ~ The Early Church on Creation, James R. Mook

Some did, as you note, but none of them had much of a following, while Augustine is today the most respected of early theologians. St. Paul himself refers to the allegorical nature of Genesis:

Galatians 4:[21] Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. [23] But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. [24] Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: [25] For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

 

[Barbarian]

Did Adam have a father "after the flesh"?

That's what the evidence indicates. The same methods that determine paternity among humans, shows that we share a common ancestor with other primates.

If yes was his father man or beast of the field?

If you saw him, you'd say he was a man; remember, we were brought forth from the earth like other animals, but the difference is that God gave Adam a living soul, and that is how we are different.

Our bodies are of this world, even if our spirits are not.

 

[zeke]

Some did, as you note, but none of them had much of a following, while Augustine is today the most respected of early theologians.

Then we agree - your notion that the literal six-day creation is a modern doctrine first presented by the Seventh-Day Adventists is a misstatement?

St. Paul himself refers to the allegorical nature of Genesis:

While there is an allegorical element in the narrative of Galatians 4 - Paul correctly understood that Abraham, his two sons, the bondwoman and the free woman were all historical people just as Adam and Eve were historical people - just as Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative - yes?

 

[zeke]

That's what the evidence indicates. The same methods that determine paternity among humans, shows that we share a common ancestor with other primates.

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What verifiable evidence do you offer that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Remember, waiving your hands in the air proves nothing.

If you saw him, you'd say he was a man; remember, we were brought forth from the earth like other animals, but the difference is that God gave Adam a living soul, and that is how we are different.

Are you saying this alleged father of Adam after the flesh had no soul? Chapter/verse please or are you pulling it out of the air?

 

[jasoncran]

That's what the evidence indicates. The same methods that determine paternity among humans, shows that we share a common ancestor with other primates.



If you saw him, you'd say he was a man; remember, we were brought forth from the earth like other animals, but the difference is that God gave Adam a living soul, and that is how we are different.

Our bodies are of this world, even if our spirits are not.

so why did god make men to have spirits then if they werent of this world?

and st agustine recanted his position on old age

and here is a good place to get an idea
http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist

now then if we are spirits and flesh, and a greek dichotomy,kindly show us in the ot of that fact? the jews dont buy that at all. we have a spirit but a soul has both flesh and spirit with it.

we have been down this before and yet you claimed that the sages and biblical statements that support the jewish five words to describe a soul as egyptian and yet that was what the apostles believed when jesus came.

they merely condensed it to three greek.imho.

the ressurection implies that we are raised in body like jesus was.

also if we"spirits" are not from that world that means we like jesus live forever and that is a heresy from the mormons. we dont live forever if christ doesnt grant us life. theres no baby spirits awaiting bodies in heaven.


yes i buy into hell , but that occurs after a ressurection and placement into a body that is fit for such torment.