[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Barbarian]

No they don't you have it backwards... the world loves evolution because it eliminates Jesus..

If you think so, you know little about it. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Evolution is consistent with Christian faith and even with most forms of creationism. Only YE creationism, which is contrary to God's word in Genesis, is not consistent with evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Remember, the ones who conspired to crucify our Lord were "orthodox" for their time....

If you think so, you don't understand the Pharisees they followed a sort of Hellenized version of Judaism.

If I am unorthodox by being a YE creationist

You are unorthodox in regarding YE as an essential part of Christian belief. Because God doesn't care whether or not you accept the fact of evolution, it is wrong to add that; it is another barrier to people who might otherwise come to Him. It would be equally wrong to insist that one must accept evolution to be a good Christian. It's just not a concern either way, unless one tries to add it as a required belief.

then Hallelujah praise God.

You could serve Him better by not adding a stumbling block before unbelievers who might otherwise become believers.

 

[turnorburn]

If you think so, you know little about it. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Evolution is consistent with Christian faith and even with most forms of creationism. Only YE creationism, which is contrary to God's word in Genesis, is not consistent with evolution.

That's not what Gods word says.. evolution blasphemes our Holy creator...

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

 

[turnorburn]

If you think so, you don't understand the Pharisees they followed a sort of Hellenized version of Judaism.



You are unorthodox in regarding YE as an essential part of Christian belief. Because God doesn't care whether or not you accept the fact of evolution, it is wrong to add that; it is another barrier to people who might otherwise come to Him. It would be equally wrong to insist that one must accept evolution to be a good Christian. It's just not a concern either way, unless one tries to add it as a required belief.



You could serve Him better by not adding a stumbling block before unbelievers who might otherwise become believers.

A stumbling block is it? Not what Richard Dawkins said.. he said it was evolution that made him become an atheist..

And you want our children to cleave to it?

 

[turnorburn]

If you think so, you know little about it. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Evolution is consistent with Christian faith and even with most forms of creationism. Only YE creationism, which is contrary to God's word in Genesis, is not consistent with evolution.

The only thing evolution is consistent with is Communism Humanism and Atheism

 

[Cygnus]

Odd then, that you're trying to find a way to refute it.



I notice that he doesn't say it's a literal history. On the other hand, if you can show where St. Paul, when he cites a figurative part of the Bible, converts it to a literal history, you might have something



The irony was that you tried to shoehorn a literal history into Genesis by Paul's reference to women in Church, when an Adventist "prophetess" actually invented YE creationism.



No, you just didn't expect the answer you got.



Now you're assuming that anything in the Bible that isn't literal history, can't be authoritative. What's your evidence for that?

For the second time you didn't answer the question...instead ran around it.

Why would Paul instruct women on how to act in church ....based upon an event that never happened?

"I notice that he doesn't say it's a literal history"...really isn't an answer considering Paul presents Genesis as LITERAL.

 

[Cygnus]

If you think so, you know little about it. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Evolution is consistent with Christian faith and even with most forms of creationism. Only YE creationism, which is contrary to God's word in Genesis, is not consistent with evolution.

Evolutionism denies Paul's teaching.
For instance Paul tells us sin and death were the result of one man....the Theo-Evo crowd says it wasn't.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you know little about it. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Evolution is consistent with Christian faith and even with most forms of creationism. Only YE creationism, which is contrary to God's word in Genesis, is not consistent with evolution.

Evolutionism denies Paul's teaching.

If you think so, you don't know much of either or both.

For instance Paul tells us sin and death were the result of one man....the Theo-Evo crowd says it wasn't.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. That's totally false.

 

[Barbarian]

For the second time you didn't answer the question...instead ran around it.

Nope. You got an answer. Your problem is you want me to assume what you did. And your assumption is contrary to scripture.

Why would Paul instruct women on how to act in church ....based upon an event that never happened?

It just didn't happen the way you would like it to have happened. Big difference.

"I notice that he doesn't say it's a literal history"...really isn't an answer considering Paul presents Genesis as LITERAL.

The point is, he doesn't present it as a literal history. And the reason he does not, is that it was never intended to be so. That is a very modern revision of scripture.

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you know little about it. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Evolution is consistent with Christian faith and even with most forms of creationism. Only YE creationism, which is contrary to God's word in Genesis, is not consistent with evolution.

Cygnus: Evolution is in direct denial of the Christian faith.

The christian faith says Eve was made from Adams rib....Adam was created first the Eve second. Evolution denies that biblical statement.

Paul tells us sin and death were the result of one man....Evolution would deny that biblical statement.

We are told in Acts: God, made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,....Evolution would deny that biblical statement.

The first man, Adam, became a living person.....taken from the bible....Evolution would deny that biblical statement.

The bible also tells us... Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Evolution would deny that biblical statement.
Once again...Evolution is in direct denial of the Christian faith.

 

[Barbarian]

Cygnus: Evolution is in direct denial of the Christian faith.

No, that's wrong. For example, Darwin, when he wrote his book was an orthodox Anglican Christian. No one who understands Christianity and evolution really believes that they are incompatible.

The christian faith says Eve was made from Adams rib....Adam was created first the Eve second. Evolution denies that biblical statement.

The Bible does not say that the Genesis story is a literal history. That is a modern revision, not held by the apostles.

Paul tells us sin and death were the result of one man....Evolution would deny that biblical statement.

It doesn't, and can't. People are usually down on things they aren't up on.

We are told in Acts: God, made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,....Evolution would deny that biblical statement.

You're wrong about that, too.

The first man, Adam, became a living person.....taken from the bible....Evolution would deny that biblical statement.

And wrong about that. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we are all descended from one pair of humans.

The bible also tells us... Adam was not deceived,

The idea that Eve was deceived an innocently ate from the tree, but Adam knew that he was defying God never made much sense to me. However, that would not be contradicted by anything in evolutionary theory.

 

[Cygnus]

And wrong about that. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we are all descended from one pair of humans.

Evolutionism teaches us that populations evolve not individuals within the population.

Your theology would need to explain how sin and death entered via one man...rather than a population.

 

[turnorburn]

Why do you say: "The Bible does not say that the Genesis story is a literal history. That is a modern revision, not held by the apostles." When the bible is Gods word.. Your telling us and the children of this world that the word of God isn't literal.. not good barb not good at all..

 

[Cygnus]

Why do you say: "The Bible does not say that the Genesis story is a literal history. That is a modern revision, not held by the apostles." When the bible is Gods word.. Your telling us and the children of this world that the word of God isn't literal.. not good barb not good at all..

I find it ironic how some can present Adam as a "myth man"....when the bible presents Adam as quite literal.

Jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, ESV

Would they clam Enoch was also a "myth man"?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian corrects another misconception:
And wrong about that. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we are all descended from one pair of humans.

Evolutionism teaches us that populations evolve not individuals within the population.

"Evolutionism" is a strawman, put together by those ignorant of evolutionary theory. As you learned, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we are all descended from one pair of humans.

Your theology would need to explain how sin and death entered via one man...

Evolutionary theory doesn't explain the supernatural, or should it. However, Christian theology does this quite nicely:

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian corrects another misconception:
And wrong about that. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we are all descended from one pair of humans.



"Evolutionism" is a strawman, put together by those ignorant of evolutionary theory. As you learned, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we are all descended from one pair of humans.



Evolutionary theory doesn't explain the supernatural, or should it. However, Christian theology does this quite nicely:

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Barbarian...you were provided with several scriptures that presented Genesis, Adam, as literal. You didn't seem to reply to them.

Yet here's another....

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23 Mary’s linage

Perhaps you could go through the linage and show us where the list turns from literal historical people to mythical people.

Secondly, your link doesn't seem to support your opinion.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian...you were provided with several scriptures that presented Genesis, Adam, as literal. You didn't seem to reply to them.

Adam was a real person, as was Eve. Is it your argument that allegories can't be done with real people?

Yet here's another....

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josek, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan,
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Luke 3:23

Mary’s linage

I put up the unedited version. Notice that it's Joseph's lineage, not Mary's. It traces Jesus's descent by Joseph, if he had been Joseph's son. Note that it makes the point very clearly by saying that Jesus was thought to have been of this lineage.

Perhaps you could go through the linage and show us where the list turns from literal historical people to mythical people.

Why would any of them have to be mythical? As you learned, Adam and Eve were real people, and that is consistent with evolutionary theory.

Secondly, your link doesn't seem to support your opinion.

I don't see how you could deny the fact.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

It clearly acknowledges the figurative language in Genesis, but affirms the reality of two original ancestors of all humans on Earth today. Perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory.

 

[Cygnus]

Adam was a real person, as was Eve. Is it your argument that allegories can't be done with real people?

At least you admitt that....but you deny scripture when you create Adam through evolutionism rather than dust and Eve through evolutionism rather than from Adams rib.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian explains:
Adam was a real person, as was Eve. Is it your argument that allegories can't be done with real people?

At least you admitt that...

I'm the one who reminded you of that. Don't creationists think Adam was a real person?

but you deny scripture

I'm denying your modern additions to scripture.

when you create Adam through evolution

Not me. God. And only his body. His soul was directly given by God. Stop telling Him what to do.

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian explains:
Adam was a real person, as was Eve. Is it your argument that allegories can't be done with real people?



I'm the one who reminded you of that. Don't creationists think Adam was a real person?

Creationist KNOW Adam was a real person.


I'm denying your modern additions to scripture.

The bible says sin and death came through that one man....you disagree with your evo-models.


Not me. God. And only his body. His soul was directly given by God. Stop telling Him what to do.

You lost me on that comment. It must have been ad-hoc.