[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Cygnus]

And Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans and almost all Lutherans, and many other Protestant denominations. Catholics are only slightly more than half of all the world's Christians. The next largest group are Eastern Orthodox, who also accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

It's really ashame to see so many denominations..sects...believe the lie of evolutionism....drop the very beginnings of their faith and exchange it for a lie.....just to appease descent with modification....and deny the fall and the resulting sin nature of man.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolution is just the way He created the diversity of living things.

Then considering that birds were formed before dinosaurs....or Genesis got the creation order wrong...you might nee to change your last statement.

 

[Cygnus]

No, it affects the modern re-interpretation of the Flood as being "global." Since scripture doesn't say it's global, it only affects the reliability of those who deemed themselves wise in making that re-interpretation.

It has been demonstrated to you that the word has several nuances. As stairway to heaven suggest...words may have two meanings...
SECONDLY, the terminology and context of the chapter places the flood account in a world wide situation.

 

[Barbarian]

Then considering that birds were formed before dinosaurs....or Genesis got the creation order wrong...

Christians have always realized that "yom" cannot be translated to literal days, since it calls for mornings evenings with no sun to have them.

you might nee to change your last statement.

Yours is a very recent re-interpretation of Genesis. While it's of no consequence to your salvation edit: personal

It has been demonstrated to you that the word has several nuances. As stairway to heaven suggest...words may have two meanings...

You new interpretation is not consistent with the facts or the language used in Genesis. Again, there's nothing in your reinterpretation that would send you to hell, Edit: Personal

 

[Cygnus]

Christians have always realized that "yom" cannot be translated to literal days, since it calls for mornings evenings with no sun to have them.

Yes, christians trying desperately to force fit the Bible into the modern concepts of evolutionism and old earth dating systems.
Just for the record, the no sun argument might work on a newbee into this study...until they realize the exact same effect would occur with the original light from the "let there be light" mentioned in the preceding verses.

Yours is a very recent re-interpretation of Genesis. While it's of no consequence to your salvation edit: personal

It might of no consequence....but it does have consequences concerning our sin nature and how we received it. The Theo-evo method is anti-bible...that is not biblical and changes to the Bible are required.

You new interpretation is not consistent with the facts or the language used in Genesis. Again, there's nothing in your reinterpretation that would send you to hell, Edit: Personal

Some may see no need for Christ if God used evolutionism as there would be no such thing as original sin. Nor the need for Jesus to redeem us from our sin nature. In that case salvation is surrendered to the false mixture of evolutionism and bible.

 

[Barbarian]

Some may see no need for Christ if God used evolutionism

Only creationists use "evolutionism." God uses evolution. Directly observed.

as there would be no such thing as original sin.

No, that's wrong. Here, you've assumed what you proposed to prove.

Nor the need for Jesus to redeem us from our sin nature.

That is also wrong. There are some forms of creationism that, if true, would remove the need for Jesus to redeem us from our sin nature, but of course, since evolution is God's creation, there's no such problem with that.

But of course some prefer their own wisdom to God's; it doesn't affect your salvation, even if you reject evolution. But some put creationism above the Bible, and that is wrong.

 

[Knotical]

Something else to consider when looking at the fallacy of evolution is that the whole theory suggest that one type of animal (birds, for example) descended from something else entirely (dinosours). Also, it suggests that humans descended from apes. The biggest problem with this idea is that apes are animals (have no soul), humans are not animals (created with souls). So, at some point evolution has to somehow figure out how humans suddenly had souls. Well, the answer is quite simple: we have always had them. We did not descend from animals, much less single celled organisms.

Furthermore, to suggest humans descended from an animal is to make it less than what it is. As we know from the account in Genesis man was made in God's image. God is not an animal, but a spiritual being. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Something else to consider when looking at the fallacy of evolution is that the whole theory suggest that one type of animal (birds, for example) descended from something else entirely (dinosours). Also, it suggests that humans descended from apes. The biggest problem with this idea is that apes are animals (have no soul), humans are not animals (created with souls). So, at some point evolution has to somehow figure out how humans suddenly had souls. Well, the answer is quite simple: we have always had them. We did not descend from animals, much less single celled organisms.

Furthermore, to suggest humans descended from an animal is to make it less than what it is. As we know from the account in Genesis man was made in God's image. God is not an animal, but a spiritual being. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

I think it more correct to say that apes and man descended from a common ancestor and not that man descended from apes. As I understand the TOE anyway.

 

[Knotical]

I think it more correct to say that apes and man descended from a common ancestor and not that man descended from apes. As I understand the TOE anyway.

Then why don't apes have souls? To say both have descended from the same ancestor either both have souls or neither do. It would not be logical to have one line of descendants not have something as important as a soul and the other be completely devoid of it.

 

[Cygnus]

Only creationists use "evolutionism." God uses evolution. Directly observed.

With all due respect....making a women from a mans rib....isn't evolution.

 

[Cygnus]

Then why don't apes have souls? To say both have descended from the same ancestor either both have souls or neither do. It would not be logical to have one line of descendants not have something as important as a soul and the other be completely devoid of it.

The Theo-evo crowd will need to INVENT some non-biblical means of explaining that.

 

[Cygnus]

That is also wrong. There are some forms of creationism that, if true, would remove the need for Jesus to redeem us from our sin nature, but of course, since evolution is God's creation, there's no such problem with that.

Hummm, when I read the Bible I see women being formed from a rib....whch kinda tells us the God of the Bible didn't use evolutionism. What does the god of your special edition "bible" tell you?

 

[Papa Zoom]

Then why don't apes have souls? To say both have descended from the same ancestor either both have souls or neither do. It would not be logical to have one line of descendants not have something as important as a soul and the other be completely devoid of it.

Good question. I don't know the answer but then I'm not a huge fan of common descent. I do have theories but no evidence for them. I call them the JMITWOT (just my imagination working over-time) ;)

 

[Barbarian]

Then why don't apes have souls?

Because an immortal soul isn't something that nature makes. God gives each of us a soul directly, not though nature.

To say both have descended from the same ancestor either both have souls or neither do.

Would be, if it weren't for God. But God exists and we each get a soul directly from Him.

It would not be logical to have one line of descendants not have something as important as a soul and the other be completely devoid of it.

Take another look at Genesis. God creates man the way the other creatures were made, until He makes him a living soul. As C.S. Lewis points out, you are a soul; you have a body.

 

[Barbarian]

Hummm, when I read the Bible I see women being formed from a rib....whch kinda tells us the God of the Bible didn't use evolutionism. What does the god of your special edition "bible" tell you?

In my Bible, God uses parables and allegories to teach us lessons. If He had literally made woman from a part of a man, then she'd have the wrong chromosomes, wouldn't she? And if you're willing to see that part as a parable, why not trust Him completely and accept all of it as it is?

 

[Knotical]

Take another look at Genesis. God creates man the way the other creatures were made, until He makes him a living soul. As C.S. Lewis points out, you are a soul; you have a body.

Nice try, but God created animals out of nothing. He used dirt to form man in Their image. Quite the difference there. Also, we are given our souls at birth because we are human, not animals.

Your argument keeps falling apart as soon as it is made.

 

[Barbarian]

I think it more correct to say that apes and man descended from a common ancestor and not that man descended from apes. As I understand the TOE anyway.

Genetic and anatomical data put humans and chimpanzees in one group within the larger group of apes. I never could understand why people's pride his hurt at our bodies being evolved from other animals. We are creatures, and these bodies are not who we are. We are spirits created directly by God, and we have these bodies which will be replaced by perfect bodies by and by.

 

[Barbarian]

Nice try, but God created animals out of nothing.

The creationist "life ex nihlo" ("life from nothing) doctrine is directly contradicted by God, in Genesis. He says the the Earth, air, and waters brought forth life according to His will. Life came from pre-existing creation. That is the way He chose to do it.

Also, we are given our souls at birth because we are human, not animals.

We are also from the Earth, but we are different, as you suggest, because we are immortal souls occupying our bodies.

 

[Papa Zoom]

The creationist "life ex nihlo" ("life from nothing) doctrine is directly contradicted by God, in Genesis. He says the the Earth, air, and waters brought forth life according to His will. Life came from pre-existing creation. That is the way He chose to do it.



We are also from the Earth, but we are different, as you suggest, because we are immortal souls occupying our bodies.

I think we're off topic (not sure) but as for evolution, the Darwinian model has been in trouble for years. Maybe that needs a new thread. As for creating life from nothing, there was nothing before there was anything. The creation isn't eternal (with an eternal past). So creation from nothing is exactly what God did and it's exactly what the Bible tells us God did.

 

[Papa Zoom]

No, it looks like we're in the territory of the OP. ;)