[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Cygnus]

As you learned, that is completely wrong. There's nothing whatever in evolutionary theory that denies the fall. Some forms of extreme creationism do, but even most creationists accept that much.

Evolutionism denies the way the Word of God informs us on how the fall occurred and why. Evolutionism totally dismisses the fall in the garden due to an act of disobedience and moves the mechanics into an anti-biblical cause.

Evolution, being part of God's creation is entirely consistent with the Bible despite what certain sects of Christianity want you to believe.

I have to laugh when I read statements such as what you just posted....al the while KNOWING the Bible teaches woman was formed from mans rib. But, heck, as you said....evolutionism is entirely consistent with the Bible. That concept has been refuted so easily and so many times I have to add.....NEXT.

Evolutionism is a strawman invented by creationists because evolutionary theory has been directly confirmed by observation.

Descent with modification....evolutionism has never been directly confirmed. How someone can in all honesty make the claim is above me.

There's nothing at all in evolutionary theory that rules out a population being descended from a single pair. In fact, there are documented instances of this. As you should know, original sin came about by an act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.

That reply is so anti-evolutionism......
Your own theory rules it out. Any pre-human living on earth not living in an area close to "Adam" would have had a good opportunity to produce offspring in which their progeny would have never come into contact with "Adams' genetics....There is much more to say about this. Perhaps you could explain why there would not be a current population not effected by the "sin mutation".

Once we see that then all have to ask why you believe the Bible when it tells us our sin nature was due to an act of disobedience but reject the notion that just previously told us woman was formed originally from mans rib. may be you can explain your pick and choose scripture.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolutionism denies the single man/woman beginning. By doing so they deny the fall.

That is very true.
They deny Genesis where it says Eve is the mother of all.

 

[Cygnus]

Actually, it's "what some woman said." Ellen G. White, a self-professed "prophetess", invented YE creationism, based on a series of visions she had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White

Why the dishonesty? Anyone who followed your link would have read..."Her writings covered a broad range of subjects, including religion, social relationships, prophecy, publishing, nutrition, creationism, agriculture, theology, evangelism, Christian lifestyle, education and health."

OK, so she wrote about creation.

 

[Cygnus]

Fortunately, evolutionary theory does not deny it. Nor does observed evolution rule out an original pair of ancestors. As I said, there are known examples of that.

What about "Adams" cousin who was just like Adam....and had offspring in a part of the continent that never associated with Adam?

Your model requires the population to drop to only two individuals..with all other breeding non-almost human primates being completely eliminated....which your science of evolutionism doesn't teach.

 

[Cygnus]

It could also be that some sect see the Garden of Eden story as symbolic more then completely factual.

True. Many sects such as those that incorporate evolutionism into their creation models MUST make the garden of Eden symbolic....despite the Bible presenting it as literal.
The question arises when they try tom explain the fall and realize they MUST deviate from what scripture teaches.

 

[Cygnus]

There are many who see Gen 1:1 through 11:9 as metaphor and/or commentary of earlier pagan mythology.
Say so and the literalists will come out of the woodwork to "fix" your view.

Yes, Jim, that view needs to be fixed. As I posted on an earlier thread..why would Paul instruct women in a letter to Timothy on how to act in church AND base it on a metaphor relating to pagan mythology?

If the Theo-Evo crown had a descent argument I would listen....but come on guys.

 

[Cygnus]

The important thing for us, is that whether you accept evolution or follow creationism, it does not matter to your salvation. There are good and God-loving people on all sides of the question. Let us not find new ways to divide His people.

Problem.....evolutionsim doesn't explain original sin.....OR, would you like to give it a try?

 

[Barbarian]

Problem.....evolutionsim doesn't explain original sin.....

Evolutionism, as you know, is a collection of misconceptions creationists have about the world. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of living things we see. If you want to learn about original sin, try here:

OR, would you like to give it a try?

Read the book. It's pretty good.

 

[Barbarian]

What about "Adams" cousin who was just like Adam....and had offspring in a part of the continent that never associated with Adam?

Imagination is a good thing, but not for adding doctrines to Christianity. If God chose to give two living things immortal souls, and have them found our kind, why does that offend you so?

Your model requires the population to drop to only two individuals..with all other breeding non-almost human primates being completely eliminated....

And that offends you because...? Most organisms don't leave ancestors after a few dozen generations.

which your science of evolutionism doesn't teach.

Remember, "evolutionism" is your new doctrine. It's a strawman collection of misconceptions creationists have about science.

 

[Barbarian]

Why the dishonesty?

I don't think creationists are dishonest for the most part. Many of them are quite sincere.

Anyone who followed your link would have read..."Her writings covered a broad range of subjects, including religion, social relationships, prophecy, publishing, nutrition, creationism, agriculture, theology, evangelism, Christian lifestyle, education and health."

OK, so she wrote about creation.

Even stranger...

Today’s young earth creationism is based on “Flood geology”. Flood geology, which teaches that most sedimentary rock layers were deposited in a single global Flood about 2500 B.C., was developed in its modern form in the early twentieth century by Seventh-day Adventist George M. Price to conform to visions of a six-day creation reported by Adventist prophetess Ellen White. Despite being advised by geologists that it was incorrect, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over Price’s Flood geology and repackaged it in The Genesis Flood (1961), which rapidly became dogma among conservative Protestants.
christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/evolutionism-denies-the-fall.69740/page-2#post-1330254

 

[Cygnus]

Evolutionism, as you know, is a collection of misconceptions creationists have about the world. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of living things we see. If you want to learn about original sin, try here:

Read the book. It's pretty good.

I'm truly glad you mentioned the Bible....I actually looked there. Do you know what it says? It says a man was created from the dust...put to sleep....then a rib was removed from the man....and a women fashioned from the rib.
Then this man and women identified as Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from a tree they should not have eaten from. This is original sin.....which is a far different version than what the evolutionist try to insert into the Word of God.

Why is the version presented by the religion of evolutionism so different?

 

[Cygnus]

Imagination is a good thing, but not for adding doctrines to Christianity. If God chose to give two living things immortal souls, and have them found our kind, why does that offend you so?

I have no problem with that....but the Evolution-version is much different that what the Bible explicitly says. It offends me when heretical concepts are mixed with the Bible.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Last time I checked only human beings were given souls....."two living things" can encompass a wide variety of creatures outside mankind.

 

[Jim Parker]

the first book was written to a certain group and by a that group who passed it on orally or written

Actually, there are two traditions revealed in the first 11 chapters.

 

[jasonc]

Actually, there are two traditions revealed in the first 11 chapters.

I did see that bit where did I read that they reconcile. Most premIL believes He is control now and will rule on the earth after a return .I didn't go into what happens as He returns

I would be closest to partial preterist,amil.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Imagination is a good thing, but not for adding doctrines to Christianity. If God chose to give two living things immortal souls, and have them found our kind, why does that offend you so?

I have no problem with that....

Why are you so resisting what He did, then?

but the Evolution-version is much different that what the Bible explicitly says.

Because they are talking about two different things.

It offends me when heretical concepts are mixed with the Bible.

Young Earth creationism is just an error, not a heresy. Be extremely careful not to confuse your personal interpretations with orthodoxy. Instead of driving wedges to separate Christians from each other, you should be finding ways to confirm the essential beliefs of our faith.

 

[Barbarian]

Last time I checked only human beings were given souls....."two living things" can encompass a wide variety of creatures outside mankind.

But as you now seem to realize, only our kind received souls, and these directly from God, as he gives them today. If you're willing to go that far with Him, why not accept all of it?

 

[Silmarien]

True. Many sects such as those that incorporate evolutionism into their creation models MUST make the garden of Eden symbolic....despite the Bible presenting it as literal.
The question arises when they try tom explain the fall and realize they MUST deviate from what scripture teaches.

There's very little in the Bible's depiction of the Garden of Eden that strikes me as literal. God is intensely anthromorphized to the point where he has hands to shape clay with, the name "Adam" literally means "Mankind" in Hebrew, "Eden" means "paradise," and so forth and so on.

Yes, Jim, that view needs to be fixed. As I posted on an earlier thread..why would Paul instruct women in a letter to Timothy on how to act in church AND base it on a metaphor relating to pagan mythology?

If the Theo-Evo crown had a descent argument I would listen....but come on guys.

Why wouldn't he? It'd be like someone in an English speaking culture referencing Shakespeare to teach something, except even more ubiquitous when dealing with holy texts. (This doesn't mean that Paul didn't understand it literally, but I'm very wary of projecting modern sensibilities on people who lived two thousand years ago.)

Problem.....evolutionsim doesn't explain original sin.....OR, would you like to give it a try?

I'll bite, since thinking about Christian theology through an evolutionary lens is my new pastime.

A lot of the uglier parts of human nature are survival mechanisms and a legacy of our evolution. The biggest one for me is the type of herd mentality that plays a role during genocides, lynchings, and so forth, where otherwise normal people can turn into monsters and murder their neighbors. It's precisely this type of evil that is front and center towards the end of the Gospels, so... I think that says a lot. It looks like classic in group vs. out group dynamics taken to their ugliest extreme, I do believe it's the result of evolutionary psychology, and that it's a clear example of an evil dwelling within human nature that we're incapable of tearing out on our own. Since we're certainly as far away from solving it today as we've ever been.

The other issue is self-knowledge itself. I personally believe that the root of suffering is our own understanding of the human condition, and the evidence would say that intelligence evolved as well. I do think something did go wrong with the species at some point, though I'm unsure as to whether this was simply the inevitable result of our evolution or a matter of actively going against what was intended for us. Maybe it's a chicken and the egg game--either way, intellect, pride, and rebellion often do go hand in hand, so the Genesis 2 account really does seem to hit it on the nail.

I'm not sure it's an approach that works with the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, but it certainly doesn't deny a Fall.

 

[Cygnus]

There's very little in the Bible's depiction of the Garden of Eden that strikes me as literal. God is intensely anthromorphized to the point where he has hands to shape clay with, the name "Adam" literally means "Mankind" in Hebrew, "Eden" means "paradise," and so forth and so on.

Problem being for your argument is Paul wrote a letter to Timothy....In the letter Paul instructed to women on how to act in church...
So, what did Paul base his rule upon?
The answer is the book of Genesis and what happened in the garden. Paul based his rule upon a literal historical event...or he based his rule upon something that never happened. Why would Paul base a rule on something that never happened?

The name game? Really? Almost every name in the Bible has a meaning behind it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Problem being for your argument is Paul wrote a letter to Timothy....In the letter Paul instructed to women on how to act in church...
So, what did Paul base his rule upon?
The answer is the book of Genesis and what happened in the garden. Paul based his rule upon a literal historical event...or he based his rule upon something that never happened. Why would Paul base a rule on something that never happened?

That question was already answered by Silmarien's post #38.
"It'd be like someone in an English speaking culture referencing Shakespeare to teach something,"
IF you did not understand his answer then perhaps you should ask for clarification.