[_ Old Earth _] Creation vs. Evolution

[cupid dave]

You must recognize that Dawkins is not EVER contradicting Genesis but ONLY the interporetation of these people, like Asyncritus, who you and I also question about their private interpretations to which they stick in spite of all arguments to the contrary.

I do not believe Dawkins would last long if confronted by the verse by verse Theistic Evolution understanding of Genesis.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hi, cupid dave.

Please let me know if I misunderstood you. According to your beliefs, when the Bible says

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them",

it is actually saying

"So God created Sahelanthropus tchadensis in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female Sahelanthropus tchadenses created He them".




"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."-John 1:1

 

[cupid dave]

Hi, cupid dave.

Please let me know if I misunderstood you. According to your beliefs, when the Bible says

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them",

it is actually saying

"So God created Sahelanthropus tchadensis in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female Sahelanthropus tchadenses created He them".




"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."-John 1:1

Hmmmm...

The way I understand Gen 1:26 is that God is still working on man, but in general, He has made us capable of imaging "him," mentally:


Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding His Laws and yheir relationship to the creation whichin which we are all trapped and nurtured.

Gen. 1:26 And God, (Father Nature, Reality), said, Let us, (i.e., his Natural Laws, together, in pan-en-theistic expression of the Spirit of God: [Gen 1:2]), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution ending in the finished Adam i.e.; Jesus),... Let us ((i.e., his Natural Laws) make man, (as a reflection of Reality, in his mind, able, through Truth, to imminently reflect the "I am" of this existence: [John 14:6]), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly panentheistic organization): and let them, (men as the Dominant species on earth to this day), have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hmmmm...

The way I understand Gen 1:26 is that God is still working on man, but in general, He has made us capable of imaging "him," mentally:


Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding His Laws and yheir relationship to the creation whichin which we are all trapped and nurtured.

I will grant you that from reading Gen 1:26 alone, one may possibly conclude a time period of God in the actual process of creating man. But, I need to ask:

Is Adam an actual specimen of Sahelanthropus tchadensis?

Since you believe that a Creation Day is not 24 hours, but an age or an era, is a Biblical generation likewise not a true generation?

Is Lamech actually the father of Jabal like it says in the Bible, or is he some otherwise-determined point up Jabal's family tree?

I ask these things all the while knowing that you are my brother in Christ. If you ask me, if The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans is such a great addition to The Book of Genesis, then The Lord God Almighty should have inspired a new council to gather and make this book a part of His Official Canon.

 

[cupid dave]

I will grant you that from reading Gen 1:26 alone, one may possibly conclude a time period of God in the actual process of creating man. But, I need to ask:

Is Adam an actual specimen of Sahelanthropus tchadensis?

Since you believe that a Creation Day is not 24 hours, but an age or an era, is a Biblical generation likewise not a true generation?

Is Lamech actually the father of Jabal like it says in the Bible, or is he some otherwise-determined point up Jabal's family tree?

I ask these things all the while knowing that you are my brother in Christ. If you ask me, if The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans is such a great addition to The Book of Genesis, then The Lord God Almighty should have inspired a new council to gather and make this book a part of His Official Canon.

Consider that Gen 5:2 explicitly tells us the Adam was a species:



Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:



Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

Add to this the subtle hint that each of these 22 creatures in the genealogy lived inordinately long lives, and the implication is that we ought understand them to be not names of individuals, but what is called an eponym or totem-like title for a tribe or peoples.

Then we read about a great flood out-of-Africa when Modern man swarmed over all the earth, even to the mountain tops, exactly at thesame time that all these ancient creatures in our past went exrtinct.
Genesis tells us of the great extinction that took place, and so do our best scientists.

 

[Adam]

Consider that Gen 5:2 explicitly tells us the Adam was a species:



Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:

"Adamites" is explicitly an addition on your part that is not in the text, but there seems to be other issues with your claim as well.
Are you claiming that any peoples with an "ites" on the end of their local identifier is a new species?

 

[Adam]

Genesis tells us of the great extinction that took place, and so do our best scientists.

Demonstrably untrue.

 

[Grazer]

Demonstrably untrue.

So scientists don't believe there was an ice age or that something (possibly an asteroid) killed the dinosaurs?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[cupid dave]

"Adamites" is explicitly an addition on your part that is not in the text,...


... but there seems to be other issues with your claim as well.
Are you claiming that any peoples with an "ites" on the end of their local identifier is a new species?

Of course its not part of the text.
It is an emphasis on what the text of Gen 5:2, posted below it, says and what it clearly implies verbatum, in that the first man and women are called Adam, the way scientists today might might call a kind of species Homo erectus or Neanderthal man.

That IS my interpretation of what the verse is telling us.
That meaning is consistent with the other interpretations made by Theistic Evolution which sees the 22 links to Modern man as the same idea in Paleontiology as it is in Genesis.


How is this liberty different from those people who will need to interpret the direct King James statement to mean that Adam is used as a generic term?
How is it different when they say "Adam" means mankind in this special case?
They MUST say that us the case beause otherwise, their whole interpretation isn't consistent.

 

[cupid dave]

So scientists don't believe there was an ice age or that something (possibly an asteroid) killed the dinosaurs?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Adam is getting frantic with these "demonstratably untrue" authoritative repsponses.

LOL
Everyone KNOWS that all other types of humans from whom we evolved and associated with went extinct totaly, starting 40 thousand years ago, just like that 40 (thousand) year flood in Genesis says:


Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).

 

[Adam]

So scientists don't believe there was an ice age or that something (possibly an asteroid) killed the dinosaurs?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

No, he is talking about a mass extinction of hominids that he claims happened 40,000 years ago leaving only homo sapiens, which is absolutely untrue.

 

[Adam]

Of course its not part of the text.
It is an emphasis on what the text of Gen 5:2, posted below it, says and what it clearly implies verbatum, in that the first man and women are called Adam, the way scientists today might might call a kind of species Homo erectus or Neanderthal man.

That IS my interpretation of what the verse is telling us.
That meaning is consistent with the other interpretations made by Theistic Evolution which sees the 22 links to Modern man as the same idea in Paleontiology as it is in Genesis.


How is this liberty different from those people who will need to interpret the direct King James statement to mean that Adam is used as a generic term?
How is it different when they say "Adam" means mankind in this special case?
They MUST say that us the case beause otherwise, their whole interpretation isn't consistent.

The difference is quite clear.

The use of "Adam" in those instances comes directly from Hebrew translation.

Strong's Concordance H120 as opposed to Strong's H121.


Examples:


Gen 1:26 And God said Let us make adam in our image...

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew : for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not an adam to till the ground.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put adam whom he had formed .

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the adam and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said , [It is] not good that adam should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


The word literally means "man." Beyond that, you cannot claim that the word alone can imply a race, nationality, or species. There is no intent of "particular species" built within the word.

However, to use the word, as opposed to the namesake "Adam (H121)" in generic terms of mankind is acceptible according to the literal definition.

That is the fundamental difference between what biblical scholars do when they are careful to note the difference between the two distinct words which English speakers are familiar with as "Adam" and what the unlearned attempt to do to force private interpretations.

 

[Adam]

LOL
Everyone KNOWS that all other types of humans from whom we evolved and associated with went extinct totaly, starting 40 thousand years ago,

Really? Everyone who?

I know you are aware that the out of Africa model didn't happen 40,000 years ago, and I also know that you are aware that neanderthal's went extints 25-30,000 years ago, Homo floresienis went extinct 15,000 years ago and that the Red Deer Cave species went extinct 12,000 years ago.


There was no mass extinction of these species. Their populations dwindled over thousands of years in different time frames, not in some allegorical global flood.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Genesis tells us of the great extinction that took place, and so do our best scientists.

Ask your best scientists to explain this:

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."-Genesis 2:20

Was Sahelanthropus tchadensis even capable of the task of naming all these creatures? Well, on second thought, you might be on to something. After all, if there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden then I guess anything is possible. Carry on.

 

[Asyncritus]

I quoted you Lennox's PA who showed that Lennox has serious reservations.

If you won't believe me, at least have the decency to believe him.

 

[Barbarian]

I quoted you Lennox's PA who showed that Lennox has serious reservations.

If you won't believe me, at least have the decency to believe him.

I would prefer to believe Lennox himself. He claimed on camera, that he sees evolution as Darwin did. And that should settle it.

Unless, of course Lennox should declare he's changed his mind again.

 

[cupid dave]

Really? Everyone who?

I know you are aware that the out of Africa model didn't happen 40,000 years ago, and I also know that you are aware that neanderthal's went extints 25-30,000 years ago, Homo floresienis went extinct 15,000 years ago and that the Red Deer Cave species went extinct 12,000 years ago.


There was no mass extinction of these species. Their populations dwindled over thousands of years in different time frames, not in some allegorical global flood.

Think about the extinction beginning 40.000 years ago and lasting until about the start of Agriculture just 10,000 years ago and you will see my popint.

The mass extinction was taking place during those 40 "days" as we "flooded" Out-of-Africa.

These WERE the ape-men who were disappearing just as you say, "neanderthal's went extints 25-30,000 years ago, Homo floresienis went extinct 15,000 years ago and that the Red Deer Cave species went extinct 12,000 years ago."

 

[cupid dave]

The difference is quite clear.

The use of "Adam" in those instances comes directly from Hebrew translation.

Strong's Concordance H120 as opposed to Strong's H121.


Examples:


Gen 1:26 And God said Let us make adam in our image...

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew : for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not an adam to till the ground.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put adam whom he had formed .

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the adam and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said , [It is] not good that adam should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


The word literally means "man." Beyond that, you cannot claim that the word alone can imply a race, nationality, or species. There is no intent of "particular species" built within the word.

However, to use the word, as opposed to the namesake "Adam (H121)" in generic terms of mankind is acceptible according to the literal definition.

That is the fundamental difference between what biblical scholars do when they are careful to note the difference between the two distinct words which English speakers are familiar with as "Adam" and what the unlearned attempt to do to force private interpretations.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

The creation fundamentalists will change Gen 5:2 just the way you say.

But the point of the Theistic Evolutionists is that Gen 5:2 clearly says in the KJV that this man and women represent a species which is a foundtion for all other claims about the 22 now extinct humans right for the literal text of the Bible, itself.

 

[cupid dave]

No, he is talking about a mass extinction of hominids that he claims happened 40,000 years ago leaving only homo sapiens, which is absolutely untrue.

No, I am talking about 40 "days" of a thousand of years each.
During which 40,000 years the 22 now extinct humans gradually, during and over that 40,000 years disappeared from the earth forever.

 

[Adam]

Think about the extinction beginning 40.000 years ago and lasting until about the start of Agriculture just 10,000 years ago and you will see my popint.

The mass extinction was taking place during those 40 "days" as we "flooded" Out-of-Africa.

These WERE the ape-men who were disappearing just as you say, "neanderthal's went extints 25-30,000 years ago, Homo floresienis went extinct 15,000 years ago and that the Red Deer Cave species went extinct 12,000 years ago."

That isn't a mass extinction.

And the out of Africa theory begins 200,000 years ago and ends 40,000 years ago. It doesn't begin 40,000 years ago and end 10,000 years ago.

You have not expressed the slightest grasp of this subject. You are simply claiming that the theory says something it doesn't to fit in with your revisions of scripture.