[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Jim Parker]

Evolutionism denies the way the Word of God informs us on how the fall occurred and why.

Please cite the text in which Evolutionism denied the way the Word of God informs us on how the fall occurred and why.

 

[Cygnus]

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.

Paul: Hey ladies....don't worry about that last rule.....it's based upon a make believe story

 

[Cygnus]

Please cite the text in which Evolutionism denied the way the Word of God informs us on how the fall occurred and why.

Tell us how man evolved to a point that an evolving population could rebel against God.....How through one man death and sin spread to all humans. What do you do with the tree?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Couldn't it also be said that the Serpent was a symbol of the temptation to obtain the unknown. The fruit a symbol of unknown knowledge. The fall the realization that once ignorance is satiated that one could never return to their inocense. The exile symbolic of finding the world being much more complex then it innocently apeared? The "sin" would then be self awareness of one's and others faults and holiness would be to struggle against the base and seek higher means?

 

[Jim Parker]

Paul: Hey ladies....don't worry about that last rule.....it's based upon a make believe story

That is a very childish response.
IF you are not ready to carry on an adult conversation then just say so.

 

[Cygnus]

That is a very childish response.
IF you are not ready to carry on an adult conversation then just say so.

Basing a rule on a non-event....is what we were talking about.
Considering it was pretty childish, did you understand my point?

 

[Silmarien]

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.

I responded to your comment about Paul as well. I see no reason to assume that it needed to be historical fact for Paul to find it authorative.

I really have no idea how Paul could be expected to know whether or not Genesis 2 was historical one way or the other, though. He was a fallible human being, not omniscient.

 

[Eugene]

I really have no idea how Paul could be expected to know whether or not Genesis 2 was historical one way or the other, though. He was a fallible human being, not omniscient.

Good post, but consider how Paul knew what the scriptures contained.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And this after being caught up into heaven by our risen LORD. According to Col 1:26 Paul received even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

[Cygnus]

I responded to your comment about Paul as well. I see no reason to assume that it needed to be historical fact for Paul to find it authorative.

Why would Paul base the rule on an event that didn't happen? Was the inspired Paul....wrong?

 

[Cygnus]

I really have no idea how Paul could be expected to know whether or not Genesis 2 was historical one way or the other, though. He was a fallible human being, not omniscient.

Was Paul not inspired by God?

 

[civilwarbuff]

But what some people don't seem to realize is that God gave souls to 2 individuals that He personally created and not to "two living things" that just happened to become human. To deny or believe otherwise is to deny that God personally created man in His image, breathed life into him and formed a special relationship with man above anything else He created. Now, I would expect an atheist to not believe this but not a believing Christian.

 

[Barbarian]

But what some people don't seem to realize is that God gave souls to 2 individuals that He personally created and not to "two living things" that just happened to become human.

To be fully human, we had to receive a soul from God. I have never been able to understand why people's pride won't let them accept the way God happened to create our bodies. While it doesn't mean that you aren't a Christian, it does seem a little perverse to me. But so long as you accept that there is a difference of opinion among Christians as to how God created man in His image, you are not out of line.

To deny or believe otherwise is to deny that God personally created man in His image, breathed life into him and formed a special relationship with man above anything else He created.

All Christians accept this fact. The only thing that's different with you, is that you object to the way He did it. But it's not a salvation issue, so you're as much a Christian and those who do.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am not objecting to the biblical description of God creating a man and woman with His hands; anyone taking the time to read my posts should be able to comprehend that; but there certainly are some around there doing their level best to deny God as the sole creator of Adam and Eve which is what evolution adherents do.

 

[Cygnus]

To be fully human, we had to receive a soul from God. I have never been able to understand why people's pride won't let them accept the way God happened to create our bodies. While it doesn't mean that you aren't a Christian, it does seem a little perverse to me. But so long as you accept that there is a difference of opinion among Christians as to how God created man in His image, you are not out of line.

Why would anyone accept the Theo-evo view? It's not biblical. How is making a woman from a rib ...evolutionary? descent with modification?

 

[Barbarian]

Why would anyone accept the Theo-evo view?

It's Biblical. As you know "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by the Bible. God says He created life from existing matter.

How is making a woman from a rib ...evolutionary?

Like much of the Bible, it's parable, not science.

descent with modification?

Won't find it in the Bible, just like you won't find protons there. There's a lot of things that are true that aren't in the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

I am not objecting to the biblical description of God creating a man and woman with His hands; anyone taking the time to read my posts should be able to comprehend that; but there certainly are some around there doing their level best to deny God as the sole creator of Adam and Eve

Who else do you think created Adam and Eve? If you're a Christian you should acknowledge that He did so. I can see you aren't happy with the way He did it, but can we at least agree that He is the One who did it?

 

[Cygnus]

It's Biblical. As you know "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by the Bible. God says He created life from existing matter.

so, you think I think Adam was created ex-nihilo?

Like much of the Bible, it's parable, not science.

1 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve........This is parable? Paul based a rule upon the order of creation, why would Paul choose a parable?

Won't find it in the Bible, just like you won't find protons there. There's a lot of things that are true that aren't in the Bible.

The difference is God said He didn't use evolutionism.

 

[Cygnus]

Who else do you think created Adam and Eve? If you're a Christian you should acknowledge that He did so. I can see you aren't happy with the way He did it, but can we at least agree that He is the One who did it?

the Bible does kinda say God made Adam from the dust...then Eve from Adams rib....That is how God said He did it.
I also noticed God didn't say from the animals I made man...

 

[civilwarbuff]

It seems to me the only ones around here not happy with how God created man are the evolutionists since they are the ones denying the biblical account and trying to create their own version.....maybe wanting to create God in their own image instead of the other way around.

 

[Barbarian]

the Bible does kinda say God made Adam from the dust...then Eve from Adams rib....That is how God said He did it.

There are some Christians who don't accept that God uses parables in Genesis. But most of us accept that He does. You're still a Christian if you don't, of course.