[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

[Barbarian]

Why would I believe the Genesis account to be a parable?

Because, as the early Christians noted, changing it to a literal history produces logical absurdities like mornings and evenings before there was a Sun to have them.

Nothing biblical calls for it..

If you believe the Bible is true, it does.

...especially when other authors present it as hisorical and literal.

Man's revisions to scripture don't mean anything to me. Sorry.

 

[Cygnus]

Because, as the early Christians noted, changing it to a literal history produces logical absurdities like mornings and evenings before there was a Sun to have them.

There was light..replaced by the sun....as well as a rotating earth. Nothing absurd about that.

 

[Barbarian]

There was light..replaced by the sun....as well as a rotating earth. Nothing absurd about that.

"Morning" does not mean "light in the sky." It means "sunrise." If you have to redefine words to make your new interpretation work, that's a pretty good indication, your interpretation is wrong.

 

[dirtfarmer]

"Morning" does not mean "light in the sky." It means "sunrise." If you have to redefine words to make your new interpretation work, that's a pretty good indication, your interpretation is wrong.

hello Barbarian, dirtfarmer here

In Genesis 1:3 God said" Let there be light"; in verse 5 " And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and morning were the first day."
How would you explain this as it was on the fourth day that two great lights were created; one to rule the "day" and the lesser light to rule the "night"? We know that the lesser light for the earth is the moon, but is the lesser light that is to rule the night?

 

[Cygnus]

"Morning" does not mean "light in the sky." It means "sunrise." If you have to redefine words to make your new interpretation work, that's a pretty good indication, your interpretation is wrong.

It shows the earth was rotating for a morning and evening to occur. The is no redefining because the bible tells us there was light.
In fact the bible say....God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”...later on day 4 God placed the sun into the sky.

The question is, what was the original light? The bible is silent on what it was in the opening chapter..but some think the light was the creation of the angels or it could have been Rev 22:5 style...There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.

 

[Barbarian]

It shows the earth was rotating for a morning and evening to occur. The is no redefining because the bible tells us there was light.

If you have to redefine "morning" and "evening" then there's you answer. You have it wrong.

As you see, any attempt to force a literal interpretation against Genesis leads to logical absurdities like this.

 

[brujaq]

Genesis 1:3

 

[Cygnus]

If you have to redefine "morning" and "evening" then there's you answer. You have it wrong.

As you see, any attempt to force a literal interpretation against Genesis leads to logical absurdities like this.

I didn't redefine it... God did. He told us He made the sun, moon and stars on day 4. You do know the bible teaches that the sun moon and stars were made on day 4? You do know there was light on day 1.

But lets talk about redefining...You redefine Adam being made from the dust and Eve being made from Adams rib. You redefine the fall in the garden, heck you even redefine the garden. You even redefine the cunning serpent in the garden that deceived Eve.

You redefined Eve being the mother of all.....Giving Eve a mother.....and the list goes on and on. Speaking of absurdities....you mix your religion of evolutionism with the bible.

 

[Barbarian]

I didn't redefine it...

You did. "Morning" doesn't mean "light in the sky." It means "when the sun appears."

But lets talk about redefining...You redefine Adam being made from the dust and Eve being made from Adams rib.

Nope. As Christians have always known, that's a parable for man's relationship to woman,and for life coming from the earth as God said.

You redefine the fall in the garden

Nope. The fall occurred when the first two people disobeyed God. Do you even read my posts?

heck you even redefine the garden.

Nope. I never even offered an opinion as to what it was. You're pretty much working off your imagination, now. Just like you interpret Genesis.

You even redefine the cunning serpent in the garden that deceived Eve.

Nope. Never offered an opinion as to who the serpent is. I notice that in the ancient middle east, a serpent was the symbol of wisdom and immortality. So that makes all kinds of sense as a parable for the fall.

You redefined Eve being the mother of all....

I told you that she was the mother of every person living today. We'll just have to disagree about that.

Your imagination causes you to mix your religion of evolutionism with the Bible.

 

[Cygnus]

You did. "Morning" doesn't mean "light in the sky." It means "when the sun appears."

Yes, you have to redefine it to be that way....but you forget the sun was made or appeared on day 4...and the book of Genesis mentions morning on days 1, 2 and 3...with no sun present. It's rather obvious you have gotten it wrong.

Nope. As Christians have always known, that's a parable for man's relationship to woman,and for life coming from the earth as God said.

It's much more than a parable..it's what happened according to the bible..."For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Paul teached that in his letter written to Timothy. Your evolutionism mixed with the bible doesn't teach that. Your evolutionism teaches man and women were formed (evolved) together. Once again I have shown how evolutionism doesn't fit with the biblical text.

Nope. The fall occurred when the first two people disobeyed God. Do you even read my posts?

According to the bible you are correct...but fail to agree with the bible when you surround Adam and Eve with a population. Once again I have shown how you need to add to the bible to force fit it into the models of evolutionism.

Nope. I never even offered an opinion as to what it was. You're pretty much working off your imagination, now. Just like you interpret Genesis.

You redefined the garden when you turned it into a parable. Would you like to retract that position now?

Nope. Never offered an opinion as to who the serpent is. I notice that in the ancient middle east, a serpent was the symbol of wisdom and immortality. So that makes all kinds of sense as a parable for the fall.

2nd Cor 11:3 doesn't put it that way....I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may be led astray from your simple and pure devotion to Christ. Here Paul presents the serpent as historical and literal. You on the other hand need to redefine scripture to once again force fit evolutionism into scripture.

I told you that she was the mother of every person living today. We'll just have to disagree about that.

Which doesn't work with the models presented by evolutionism. More on that here in this thread I started.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, you have to redefine it to be that way....but you forget the sun was made or appeared on day 4...and the book of Genesis mentions morning on days 1, 2 and 3...with no sun present.

Yep. So taking it as a literal history would lead to an absurd conclusion. It's rather obvious you have gotten it wrong.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. As Christians have always known, that's a parable for man's relationship to woman,and for life coming from the earth as God said.

It's much more than a parable..

Yes. One of the things it is not, is a literal account. Your evolutionism mixed with the bible doesn't teach that. Your evolutionism teaches that God did some surgery and magically changed some genes around to make cloned woman from a man. Why not just accept it as it is?

According to the bible you are correct...

More to the point, according to the Bible, you are wrong.

I understand that you want to believe in your new doctrine of "evolutionism." But as you see, you can't force a literal interpretation on Genesis. Just doesn't work.

The good news, is that your salvation doesn't depend on how you look at it. So it won't hurt you. What creationism and it's offshoot,evolutionism, do is put off people who might otherwise accept God. They look at you doctrines, and knowing that they are patently false, conclude that Christianity is also false.

 

[Cygnus]

The good news, is that your salvation doesn't depend on how you look at it. So it won't hurt you. What creationism and it's offshoot,evolutionism, do is put off people who might otherwise accept God. They look at you doctrines, and knowing that they are patently false, conclude that Christianity is also false.

What Theo-Evos have done is removed the reason for Jesus as taught in the first book of Holy Bible..and exchanged it for a syncretistic lukewarm false religion. That is not good news for the religion of evolutionism. Those of that faith should repent.

 

[Barbarian]

What Theo-Evos have done is removed the reason for Jesus as taught in the first book of Holy Bible.

If you think so, you don't understand Christianity at all. Even if God created Adam and Eve by natural means as He says, it wouldn't change the reason for Jesus at all. As you learned, that was caused by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and therefore required a Savior.

I could say that you've abandoned that reality and exchanged it for a syncretistic lukewarm false religion, called creationism/evolutionism, but the truth is, even if you reject the way He created things, you can still be saved.

However, denying the faith of your fellow Christians might be an unwise idea for you. Definitely against God's TOS.

 

[Cygnus]

If you think so, you don't understand Christianity at all. Even if God created Adam and Eve by natural means as He says, it wouldn't change the reason for Jesus at all. As you learned, that was caused by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and therefore required a Savior.

I could say that you've abandoned that reality and exchanged it for a syncretistic lukewarm false religion, called creationism/evolutionism, but the truth is, even if you reject the way He created things, you can still be saved.

However, denying the faith of your fellow Christians might be an unwise idea for you. Definitely against God's TOS.

Wow, talk about a wishy washy mixture.

 

[Barbarian]

Wow, talk about a wishy washy mixture.

Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 25 what you must do to be saved. How you regard the way he created living things is not one of those things. If you think He's "wishy washy", then maybe that's an important revelation for you.

 

[Cygnus]

Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 25 what you must do to be saved. How you regard the way he created living things is not one of those things. If you think He's "wishy washy", then maybe that's an important revelation for you.

Do you believe in the right Jesus?
Your riinal sin theology seems to be made up...not Biblical.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 25 what you must do to be saved. How you regard the way he created living things is not one of those things. If you think He's "wishy washy", then maybe that's an important revelation for you.

Do you believe in the right Jesus?

He's the one who told you those things in the Bible. If that's not your Jesus, you're following the wrong one.

Your riinal sin theology seems to be made up...not Biblical.

I know that it was Adam and Eve disobeying God. (Barbarian checks) Yep, that's what the Bible says. You sure it's the Bible you're reading?

 

[brujaq]

Barbarian observes:
Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 25 what you must do to be saved. How you regard the way he created living things is not one of those things. If you think He's "wishy washy", then maybe that's an important revelation for you.



He's the one who told you those things in the Bible. If that's not your Jesus, you're following the wrong one.



I know that it was Adam and Eve disobeying God. (Barbarian checks) Yep, that's what the Bible says. You sure it's the Bible you're reading?

It's good you've come to the point that you believe the Bible Barb .. Now who was Eve's mother-in-law according to your Bible ?

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:


I know that it was Adam and Eve disobeying God. (Barbarian checks) Yep, that's what the Bible says. You sure it's the Bible you're reading?

The Adam and Eve you speak of are different than what the bible presents. Adam made from the dust.....THEN....Eve was made from Adams rib.
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being;" 1 Cor 15:45...If Adam evolved, he was already living...and wasn't the first man.

You're theory of evo-ism just doesn't work.

 

[Barbarian]

The Adam and Eve you speak of are different than what the bible presents.

Nope. The Bible says the same thing. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and that is what the Fall is. At least in the Christian Bible.

If you don't agree with the Bible when it uses figurative language, you'll be constantly arguing against God's word. The good news for you, is that He doesn't care if you approve of the way He did it. Unless you make an idol of creationism, and claim that your new interpretation is required to be saved, you'll have no consequences at all.

Some Christians agree with you; many do not. It doesn't matter to salvation. Don't let it be an impediment to yours.