[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Barbarian]

You posted "I am repulsed when "scientists" use science to try and disprove "God" and what God has revealed."
Repulsed might be to heavy of a word for me...but I agree.

There is nothing in God's revelation to us, that is contrary to evolutionary theory. It's contrary to some modern revisions to scripture, but not to His word as He gave it to us.

 

[Barbarian]

You asked where the Neanderthal roots fit in....There is some interesting science that suggest the Neanderthal were the people in the bible that lived to long ages. They say as we live..well past 100 features of our skull changes.

There was a creationist orthodontist who had that hypothesis, but it doesn't work. Even Neandertal children had the characteristics Cuozzo assumed to be indicators of great age.

 

[turnorburn]

You think we give too much credit to the devil?

Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

looks like a lot of power to me, all of this started in the garden..How many versions of the bible do we need? here's a little something i came across...

The purpose of many (if not all) of the new Bible versions is to waterdown the truth so that people won't know what the scriptures really say and they'll be fooled. The Jehovah Witness bible changes around things like this and when you try to reason with them out of the Bible, they argue with their corrupted version. The same thing recently happened to me when I was speaking to a catholic person about Exodus 20:4 (I was told, "my bible doesn't say that"). Satan is a deceiver. But God is not without witness, you can rely on the Authorized King James of 1611--it's been around a long time and Satan hates it. The beast is coming and I forewarn you that men playing around with the Bible and changing it has something to do with ushering him in.

 

[turnorburn]

There is nothing in God's revelation to us, that is contrary to evolutionary theory. It's contrary to some modern revisions to scripture, but not to His word as He gave it to us.

Everything about evolution is contrary to Gods word because its man made..

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Hi Jacks Bratt
I'm going to have a problem because I know so little. But here goes:
I believe God created the first man and woman. I don't believe in evolution, except some evolution within a species for the purpose of survival. For instance, fish at the bottom of the ocean have no eyes because they don't need them. Frogs have a long tongue because they need to catch flying insects. The notion that one species could evolve into another has always sounded pretty silly to me since I was a teenager. Many moons ago.

So I'm with you and agree to everything you've stated.

I'm just trying to understand about these "creatures" that are found. I know that the missing link has never been found and I doubt it ever will be. I'm just trying to put together the idea that these "creatures" are found and my truth that God created the first man and woman.

So I gather you don't give any value to my idea that maybe God took one of these "creatures" and made man out of it as I had explained.

What if one day the link IS found? Wouldn't my "theory" explain it and reconcile it to the Genesis story?
Or are you going to say I don't have enough faith??

Wondering

I have a little twist on your idea. The animals that came off the ark were genetic warehouses, so to speak. From them we can get all the different Felines, Canines, swallows, cattle, whatever. I think there must have been some of this as we do it ourselves. My wife bred our pure bred golden retriever with our purebred Border Collie. The pups were "Gollies". If we, and other breeders continued and kept to strict "breeder" ethics, we could get a new recognized breed.

Anyway, this is easily understandable if the two animals could mate and produce offspring that also could mate. The end of the line is when the offspring are unable to reproduce.

This is where these different creatures came from. Branches within the mating line of genetics that became extinct by whatever reason.

As for Man coming from one of these other creatures... to me, God was quite clear. He formed man Himself and breathed life into the nostrils (that is key, not the heart but the nasal passage, it was air containing life) of the brand new body that He made in His image.

I know, I know. God doesn't have hands or the breath He breathed in was a soul and not the air we breath as the breath of life...... Nonsense.
God has hands. He wrote the ten commandments in the tablets with His finger.... there are more examples to prove this as well. As for the breath..... the breath you breath today, your life giving breath has been passed down from the life God gave Adam, then to Eve with his rib. Then all the way down to Noah, his wife and sons and then their kids, kids kids and so on. One spark of life was given and has been passed on down to each and every human being that ever lived.

As for finding a "missing link". As I have stated before, it can never be proven. This is due to fossils being static snapshots of a period of time.
You can not look at a shirt in a used clothing store and say who wore it, where they wore it, how many times it was worn, washed, whether it was worn by a kid, adult, man or woman.... it is a shirt. it existed and was worn.... end of story.

 

[Barbarian]

Everything about evolution is contrary to Gods word

No, nothing about evolution is contrary to God's word. Couldn't be. After all, God mad evolution. It's contrary to modern revisions of His word, but creationism is not a viable alternative to the Bible because creationism is man made. Creationists suppose that they are wise, but:

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

You asked where the Neanderthal roots fit in....There is some interesting science that suggest the Neanderthal were the people in the bible that lived to long ages. They say as we live..well past 100 features of our skull changes.

I have heard this too.

 

[Barbarian]

I have a little twist on your idea. The animals that came off the ark were genetic warehouses, so to speak. From them we can get all the different Felines, Canines, swallows, cattle, whatever.

That wouldn't work, because there is far too much genetic variation for even seven pairs of animals to have contained all the genetic variation we see today. In seven pairs, there could be at most, 14 alleles for each gene, but today, most groups of animals have hundreds of alleles in those genes.

I think there must have been some of this as we do it ourselves. My wife bred our pure bred golden retriever with our purebred Border Collie. The pups were "Gollies". If we, and other breeders continued and kept to strict "breeder" ethics, we could get a new recognized breed.

Hybridization is occasionally responsible for new species, but that's not how it usually works.

I know, I know. God doesn't have hands or the breath He breathed in was a soul and not the air we breath as the breath of life...... Nonsense.

Jesus Himself said that God is a spirit, and he said that spirits have no bodies. So I'll go with His understanding.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Barbarian]

I have a little twist on your idea. The animals that came off the ark were genetic warehouses, so to speak. From them we can get all the different Felines, Canines, swallows, cattle, whatever.

That wouldn't work, because there is far too much genetic variation for even seven pairs of animals to have contained all the genetic variation we see today. In seven pairs, there could be at most, 14 alleles for each gene, but today, most groups of animals have hundreds of alleles in those genes.

I think there must have been some of this as we do it ourselves. My wife bred our pure bred golden retriever with our purebred Border Collie. The pups were "Gollies". If we, and other breeders continued and kept to strict "breeder" ethics, we could get a new recognized breed.

Hybridization is occasionally responsible for new species, but that's not how it usually works.

I know, I know. God doesn't have hands or the breath He breathed in was a soul and not the air we breath as the breath of life...... Nonsense.

Jesus Himself said that God is a spirit, and he said that spirits have no bodies. So I'll go with His understanding.

 

[turnorburn]

No, nothing about evolution is contrary to God's word. Couldn't be. After all, God mad evolution. It's contrary to modern revisions of His word, but creationism is not a viable alternative to the Bible because creationism is man made. Creationists suppose that they are wise, but:

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

It doesn't fit barb...

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

 

[GodsGrace]

It means that she is the class common female ancestor of everyone living today. Not the first woman, by any means.

Suppose that humans only lived where the Flood actually happened, and every human on Earth except Noah's family died. Then, Noah's wife would be the last common female ancestor of all humans living today. But certainly not the first woman.

Okay. But if Noah's wife was the class common female of all human beings today - then that means it's not correct to call this female traced back to Africa the "first woman" since, by your explanation, it would mean that other women lived BEFORE her - so why would she be called the "first" woman??

Is that just a way of saying "class common" for the non.scientific folk?

W

 

[Jacks Bratt]

It means that she is the class common female ancestor of everyone living today. Not the first woman, by any means.

Suppose that humans only lived where the Flood actually happened, and every human on Earth except Noah's family died. Then, Noah's wife would be the last common female ancestor of all humans living today. But certainly not the first woman.

Then, why did God let Adam name the first female human, that he was given to be his helpmate. He called her "woman" because she was taken out of him. Also, it says God took a rib and made her...... Kinda hard to get around that.

 

[GodsGrace]

You think we give too much credit to the devil?

Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

looks like a lot of power to me, all of this started in the garden..How many versions of the bible do we need? here's a little something i came across...

The purpose of many (if not all) of the new Bible versions is to waterdown the truth so that people won't know what the scriptures really say and they'll be fooled. The Jehovah Witness bible changes around things like this and when you try to reason with them out of the Bible, they argue with their corrupted version. The same thing recently happened to me when I was speaking to a catholic person about Exodus 20:4 (I was told, "my bible doesn't say that"). Satan is a deceiver. But God is not without witness, you can rely on the Authorized King James of 1611--it's been around a long time and Satan hates it. The beast is coming and I forewarn you that men playing around with the Bible and changing it has something to do with ushering him in.

Hey turnorburn,
I'd like to ask that priest you were speaking to which version of the bible he's using.
Here's why:
I have a lot of bibles, including Catholic ones and in TWO languages.
So I checked:
The KJV
NASB
Catholic in English (Good News Bible - sorry about that...)
Catholic in Italian - Versione San Paolo (very respected)

THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING!

Maybe he meant that he didn't undertsand it the same way you do.

Just an aside...

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I have a little twist on your idea. The animals that came off the ark were genetic warehouses, so to speak. From them we can get all the different Felines, Canines, swallows, cattle, whatever. I think there must have been some of this as we do it ourselves. My wife bred our pure bred golden retriever with our purebred Border Collie. The pups were "Gollies". If we, and other breeders continued and kept to strict "breeder" ethics, we could get a new recognized breed.

Anyway, this is easily understandable if the two animals could mate and produce offspring that also could mate. The end of the line is when the offspring are unable to reproduce.

This is where these different creatures came from. Branches within the mating line of genetics that became extinct by whatever reason.

As for Man coming from one of these other creatures... to me, God was quite clear. He formed man Himself and breathed life into the nostrils (that is key, not the heart but the nasal passage, it was air containing life) of the brand new body that He made in His image.

I know, I know. God doesn't have hands or the breath He breathed in was a soul and not the air we breath as the breath of life...... Nonsense.
God has hands. He wrote the ten commandments in the tablets with His finger.... there are more examples to prove this as well. As for the breath..... the breath you breath today, your life giving breath has been passed down from the life God gave Adam, then to Eve with his rib. Then all the way down to Noah, his wife and sons and then their kids, kids kids and so on. One spark of life was given and has been passed on down to each and every human being that ever lived.

As for finding a "missing link". As I have stated before, it can never be proven. This is due to fossils being static snapshots of a period of time.
You can not look at a shirt in a used clothing store and say who wore it, where they wore it, how many times it was worn, washed, whether it was worn by a kid, adult, man or woman.... it is a shirt. it existed and was worn.... end of story.

Thanks Jacks Bratt.
I understand everything you're saying and it's nice to have a person such as yourself comment on my idea.
I agree with you about God's breath too. The man had to become alive before he could even receive the spirit or any preternatural gifts (if that's what we'd want to call them).

And re hands. Yes. Amazing how He could create the entire universe without hands! LOL.

I don't understand about the "snapshot" of fossils very well - but I'll be thinking about it.
If it's a snapshot it means the creature existed at that time - but it doesn't mean it changed into anything. I think this is what it means. And, as I stated before, if this is what it means - I would agree.

Wondering

 

[turnorburn]

Rome rejects the King James version they use this instead which gives you another gospel..Example

King James II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Douay–Rheims Bible

II Peter 3:[9] The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.

See what happens when you change a word... it changes doctrine.. repentance and penance are two different things...

 

[turnorburn]

Hey turnorburn,
I'd like to ask that priest you were speaking to which version of the bible he's using.
Here's why:
I have a lot of bibles, including Catholic ones and in TWO languages.
So I checked:
The KJV
NASB
Catholic in English (Good News Bible - sorry about that...)
Catholic in Italian - Versione San Paolo (very respected)

THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING!

Maybe he meant that he didn't undertsand it the same way you do.

Just an aside...

W

Protestants don 't ask priests..

 

[Jacks Bratt]

That wouldn't work, because there is far too much genetic variation for even seven pairs of animals to have contained all the genetic variation we see today. In seven pairs, there could be at most, 14 alleles for each gene, but today, most groups of animals have hundreds of alleles in those genes.



Hybridization is occasionally responsible for new species, but that's not how it usually works.



Jesus Himself said that God is a spirit, and he said that spirits have no bodies. So I'll go with His understanding.

We have no way of knowing how many different types of each kind of animal were on the ark. Using occam's razor, and since evolution is contrary to God's word, the number of animals on the ark and the number of species we have to day are all possible.

I knew you would come out with this one solitary verse that states "God is a spirit" :
John 4:24King James Version (KJV)

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

However, I'll go with this.....

Exodus 31:18King James Version (KJV)
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.


Remember, God would not have flesh and bones like we have because He exists in a heavenly dimension. Christ ate food, hugged His disciples, cooked fish, Thomas put his fingers in the nail holes and his hand in the side where Christ was pierced. Then Christ, walked through a locked door. This is a spiritual body. I am positive that God has a form of spirit that is perfectly capable of forming a human body if it can write in stone with His finger.

 

[GodsGrace]

Protestants don 't ask priests..

Didn't you say this in your post no. 63??

The same thing recently happened to me when I was speaking to a catholic person aboutExodus 20:4 (I was told, "my bible doesn't say that").

I was speaking to this. I know protestants don't ask priests. FYI The Catholic church has now translated its bible from the original Greek instead of from the Vulgate. The D.R. is also a translation from the Vulgate so I don't like it.

So now let me check out 2 Peter 3:9

Okay. Here it says "penance" instead of "repentence." (in both Catholic bibles)
Big difference, as you said.
But the D.R. has repentance.
Guess they made the change later on.

W

 

[Barbarian]

We have no way of knowing how many different types of each kind of animal were on the ark. Using occam's razor, and since evolution is contrary to God's word, the number of animals on the ark and the number of species we have to day are all possible.

No. If there was a literal ark, it would be limited to the size mentioned in Genesis. Hence, we know it couldn't have held that many animals. Read YE creationist John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study.

I knew you would come out with this one solitary verse that states "God is a spirit" :

John 4:24King James Version (KJV)

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus reaffirmed that fact to His frightened disciples shortly after the resurrection. When He entered the room in His glorified body they thought they had seen a spirit. He calmed them by saying, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). Spirits do not have bodies.

This seems to present a problem, however, since Scripture does refer to God at times as though He has a body. For example, it mentions His hand and His ear (Isaiah 59:1), His eye (2 Chronicles 16:9), and His mouth (Matthew 4:4). Theologians call these anthropomorphisms, a word meaning “human form.” They are symbolic representations used to make God’s actions more understandable to our finite minds. But God has no material substance and He is not dependent on any material thing. He dwells in the realm of spirit.
https://bible.org/seriespage/5-god-spirit

However, I'll go with this.....

I'll go with what Jesus said.

God could indeed form whatever body He wanted to appear to us, but of course...

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

No. If there was a literal ark, it would be limited to the size mentioned in Genesis. Hence, we know it couldn't have held that many animals. Read YE creationist John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study.



Jesus reaffirmed that fact to His frightened disciples shortly after the resurrection. When He entered the room in His glorified body they thought they had seen a spirit. He calmed them by saying, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). Spirits do not have bodies.

This seems to present a problem, however, since Scripture does refer to God at times as though He has a body. For example, it mentions His hand and His ear (Isaiah 59:1), His eye (2 Chronicles 16:9), and His mouth (Matthew 4:4). Theologians call these anthropomorphisms, a word meaning “human form.” They are symbolic representations used to make God’s actions more understandable to our finite minds. But God has no material substance and He is not dependent on any material thing. He dwells in the realm of spirit.
https://bible.org/seriespage/5-god-spirit



I'll go with what Jesus said.

God could indeed form whatever body He wanted to appear to us, but of course...

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

I will go with the fact that God is not of this dimension and wrote the ten commandments with His finger. If He wrote in stone with His finger He could certainly form the first human with those same hands.