[_ Old Earth _] Early homosapiens and salvation

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You just don't like the answer. Man was created like any other animal, but then God directly gave him a living soul and from that he was capable of moral actions unlike other animals.

Notice that God uses nature to make our bodies, but our immortal souls are given directly by Him. Once you accept it His way, the problems go away. Worth a try.

That is a biblical LIE. Please retract that lie......or PROVE it.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

If you won't accept what He says in Genesis, I don't know what I can do to persuade you.

 

[Cygnus]

Creationist evolutionism isn't exactly heretical; it's merely unorthodox. But of course evolutionary theory, which does not deny the fall, has no such problems.

Evolutionary theory most definitely denies the fall.

Then again you have failed in the previous months to explain how it doesn't.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionary theory most definitely denies the fall.

Nope. Nothing whatever in the theory that does that. You have failed in the previous months to explain how it does. As you learned, your new belief of "evolutionism" denies the fall, but of course, evolutionary theory says nothing at all about it.

Feel free to show us what it is in evolutionary theory that does this. As you have learned, there is nothing in evolutionary theory or in science generally that denies we could have come from a single pair, or that that pair was given living souls by God directly, or that they disobeyed God and so lost their innocence and needed a Redeemer.

If you deny this, please show us in the theory where this is denied. You've been asked before; you've always declined to do so. I think you believe what you're saying, but because you don't know what evolutionary theory is, you're only guessing.

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

If you won't accept what He says in Genesis, I don't know what I can do to persuade you.

Out of all of these translations....only the Douay-Rheims Bible uses slime. The word used is aphar 6083...and in no way indicates slime. You can click on the link if you don't believe me.
Gen 3:19 from the Douay-Rheims Bible seems to forget slime....and instead translates the word as dust this time. The same word they made a mistake and translated as slime is used in verse 19.
19...In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Why do you continue in their mistake?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nah, I am quite happy dealing with reality as best I can.......
But chopping up someones statements just so it appears they agree with you.....tsk,tsk, tsk.....

 

[Barbarian]

Out of all of these translations....only the Douay-Rheims Bible uses slime.

Use "earth" or "dust" if you like. It won't change anything you want to change in scripture.

 

[Cygnus]

Feel free to show us what it is in evolutionary theory that does this. As you have learned, there is nothing in evolutionary theory or in science generally that denies we could have come from a single pair, or that that pair was given living souls by God directly, or that they disobeyed God and so lost their innocence and needed a Redeemer.

I've been freely doing that for a while now....single pair fails. Adam would have had "people" surrounding him. A father, mother...uncle, siblings....neighbors close by and far away. What you're telling me is that God gave living souls to just Adam and Eve....and somehow their blood line spread to every living human being. That process would have taken thousands of years if it were even possible...something you present as possible...yet is not promoted as part of the T.O.E..

 

[Cygnus]

Use "earth" or "dust" if you like. It won't change anything you want to change in scripture.

You specifically used slime....you chose that translation on purpose because it sounds like what the Evo's believe. Then when our mistake was pointed out....you now backpedal.

 

[Cygnus]

Use "earth" or "dust" if you like. It won't change anything you want to change in scripture.

If man evolved it seems to reason God would ave said....from the animals I made Adam...not dust....AND certainly there would have been no mention of Adams rib.

As you have been learning....evolution and the Bible are not compatible.

 

[Barbarian]

I've been freely doing that for a while now....single pair fails.

No, that's wrong. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says a population can't arise from a single pair. There are many examples of just that happening.

Adam would have had "people" surrounding him. A father, mother...uncle, siblings....neighbors close by and far away.

Who weren't given a living soul by God. So not the same. That's no problem, either.

What you're telling me is that God gave living souls to just Adam and Eve....

And all their descendants. You see, a soul is not a mere epiphemenon of a human body. It's given immediately by God to each of us. And that's how we are different from other animals.

and somehow their blood line spread to every living human being.

No. You're still trying to find a way to make this a natural process. It's not. God directly gives a living soul to each of us, and while He uses nature to make our bodies, nature has no role at all in the creation of our souls.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So, 'non-humans' gives birth to a human male and female in the same physical area at the same (reasonable) time such that they would be able to breed (have to talk to Las Vegas on the odds of that happening). God gives the humans a soul but the 'non-humans' who gave birth to the human get squat.....is that about right?

 

[Cygnus]

God directly gives a living soul to each of us,

No kidding....because we all go back to Adam.
If there was a population around..and from that population...God gave Adam a soul, then just those who were Adams progeny would receive a soul....but what about the "people" alive today who never had their genetics mixed with Adams? Kinda creates a problem for you that requires extra biblical material....or as I put it earlier, a false Genesis.

 

[Cygnus]

No, that's wrong. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says a population can't arise from a single pair. There are many examples of just that happening.

BUT, there would have been several population around...when your single Adam and Eve started a new progeny.

....or are you saying two apes like creature gave birth to two human like animals?

 

[Jim Parker]

This probably best fits into the theology section, but because I'm asking this from the assumption of an old earth and evolution I feel safer putting it here. If it needs to be moved I understand

My question is: where does salvation come into play with ancient man? We know that people could be saved before Christ by trusting in the promise of a messiah, what about ancient people before the law was ever handed down? I guess it's akin to the question of what happens to people who have never heard about Jesus. But my question is, if they couldn't be saved, why would God have waited 30,000 years to provide a way for man? Millions upon millions of lost souls...

Rom 2:14-15 ... when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Evolution never happened.
Evolution presents a problem to salvation....that is it can't even begin to present a biblical explanation for original sin.

That's not a problem for evolution.
It's a problem for you.
Your personal understanding (such as it is) of theology and science is not the basis of all truth for all of theology and all of science.
I know, big disappointment for you, huh? Oh well...

 

[Edward]

Nope. Nothing whatever in the theory that does that. You have failed in the previous months to explain how it does. As you learned, your new belief of "evolutionism" denies the fall, but of course, evolutionary theory says nothing at all about it.

Feel free to show us what it is in evolutionary theory that does this. As you have learned, there is nothing in evolutionary theory or in science generally that denies we could have come from a single pair, or that that pair was given living souls by God directly, or that they disobeyed God and so lost their innocence and needed a Redeemer.

If you deny this, please show us in the theory where this is denied. You've been asked before; you've always declined to do so. I think you believe what you're saying, but because you don't know what evolutionary theory is, you're only guessing.

No, you're singing a different tune lately and are doing what civilwarbuff said. You never have explained anything about evolution but changed tactics to twist peoples words. So feel free to explain how evolutoionary theory works in with scripture at all, since that's your baby and people have been asking you to explain yourself for..a long time and you wont. Your answer can't be oh you dont believe scripture, when you haven't shown where scripture agrees with evo at all. So you're not worth even responding to anymore.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So, 'non-humans' gives birth to a human male and female in the same physical area at the same (reasonable) time such that they would be able to breed (have to talk to Las Vegas on the odds of that happening). God gives the humans a soul but the 'non-humans' who gave birth to the human get squat.....is that about right?

One other point.....the new humans live centuries versus the non-humans that they came from survive 3-4 decades.....Talk about an evolutionary leap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Barbarian]

BUT, there would have been several population around...when your single Adam and Eve started a new progeny.

....or are you saying two apes like creature gave birth to two human like animals?

Would it offend you if God made the first two people H. erectus instead of our particular species? Why would it matter at all to God? And if it doesn't matter to Him, why would it matter to anyone?

 

[Barbarian]

No, you're singing a different tune lately

No, you're just starting to catch on. It was always like that.

You never have explained anything about evolution but changed tactics to twist peoples words.

I've shown you all sorts of things about evolutionary theory. But most of the time you presented a rather unusual interpretation of Genesis. And evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about Genesis.

So feel free to explain how evolutoionary theory works in with scripture at all

For example, you learned that evolutionary theory does not reject us descending from a single pair. If you think something else in evolutionary theory rejects something else in scripture (and not just your new interpretation), tell us about it.

since that's your baby and people have been asking you to explain yourself for..a long time and you wont.

You've brought several misconceptions up and we cleared them up for you. I've spent a lifetime studying biology and studying the Bible, and there just isn't anything I've found that's problem. After a few initial attempts, you got rather shy about asserting any more of them. So I'm thinking it's starting to dawn on you that there aren't any.

So let's see where you think the two conflict.

 

[Barbarian]

So, 'non-humans' gives birth to a human male and female in the same physical area at the same (reasonable) time such that they would be able to breed (have to talk to Las Vegas on the odds of that happening).

You're still stuck on the notion that God did it naturally. These two wouldn't have to be genetically different from the rest. What happened that made them different is that direct gift of an immortal soul from God.

If we didn't have an immortal soul, and were just like the other animals, what then? I don't think you've given this very much thought.