Gap creationism

[seekandlisten]

but the bible is Written as one unit

Correction. The books of the Bible were all written as separate books and compiled later on into a neat little package that we now have as the Bible.

if the beggining is to be tooken allegorical then so must revalation

And that is what we have except some insist on a literal reading of both?

As for the reading of revelation, Isaac Newton wrote down a lot of info on this that is worthwhile reading. I can provide a link if you would like.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

If God isnt the same then(in the beggining, then he isnt the same today, and tommorow).He would be liar. if he is using a natural process to start the world then why does talk about the massive changes that the earht will have. no sea in revalation?


the earth is going to be burnt up. see the vs on 2 peter on this. judgment. must come. that is why i must conclude that if genesis is allegorical then so must the judgment be, for peter spoke of the earth being flooded and also the judgment by fire, if that is allegorical then what is their to fear?

There is nothing to fear, of this the Bible is very clear. Here is a link for some stuff Isaac Newton had to say about revelation and Biblical prophecy.

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=74

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

God lead those men to do that, if he didnt then the church and christ promises are dead. and i dont care for mr.newton said.

while he is genius. i will allow the spirit of lord to convince me to what the bible says.

i used to think that bible was in complete and missing books. the holy spirit shown me that is the way it is without the apochrya.

i didnt believe in the trinity, nor the holy spirit as i do now. no men alone taught me nor teaches me. i ask and reask to be sure. though God uses men to teach, but it must the holy spirit.

can and do i mis interpret the bible yes, i have done that.

but when you take genesis and add evolution into the mix you get the logical conclusion that God wants us to suffer no matter what. when you look at from the creationist point we suffer because of sin's consequences and that God plan wasnt to have death enter the world.

what if adam and eve never sinned, then they and their children would still die? some paradise.eternal death in stead of eternal life.

 

[seekandlisten]

God lead those men to do that, if he didnt then the church and christ promises are dead.

Why would the books of the Bible being not bound in one complete package cause everything to fall apart? I don't think the 'life' Christ promised depends on a book.

and i dont care for mr.newton said.

He put a lot of study into Biblical studies and prophecy and has some knowledge to share. I wouldn't be so hasty to disregard what he has to say on the matter.

while he is genius. i will allow the spirit of lord to convince me to what the bible says.

I can respect that. How can you let the lord convince though if you do not study differing opinions?

i used to think that bible was in complete and missing books. the holy spirit shown me that is the way it is without the apochrya.

I don't think anyone needs a book or religion to tell them what is the proper way to live. God says in the bible it depends on our hearts. The Bible also claims that the Gentiles had the law written in their hearts even without the written law in their hands.

i didnt believe in the trinity, nor the holy spirit as i do now. no men alone taught me nor teaches me. i ask and reask to be sure. though God uses men to teach, but it must the holy spirit.

can and do i mis interpret the bible yes, i have done that.

Many people claim to have the proper interpretation of the Bible. I'm impressed and can respect that you show that you are fallible in your interpreting and are open to correction.

but when you take genesis and add evolution into the mix you get the logical conclusion that God wants us to suffer no matter what.

Yet those that do accept that God used evolution don't come to that same conclusion so could you be missing something?

when you look at from the creationist point we suffer because of sin's consequences and that God plan wasnt to have death enter the world.

I think you may be confusing physical death with spiritual death.

what if adam and eve never sinned, then they and their children would still die?

Doesn't the Bible teach that one must 'die' in order to 'live'?

some paradise.eternal death in stead of eternal life.

Does all of religion come down to how one spends eternity? Shouldn't we be focused more on the now and let what 'God' has in store play out according to 'His' will?

Back to the literal interpretation of Genesis. What does the evidence show? Here is what I look at. Scientific evidence points to an old earth and life evolving on earth. Early Christian leaders spoke of certain things in Genesis bringing about the conclusion that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally. Genesis states that the 'land' brought forth living things. The doctrine of young earth creationism came about long after Jesus. (added by men no?) I remember reading something about the 15th-16th century being when YEC was introduced. I may be wrong on that figure, but if someone wants to claim otherwise show me. So really the only thing that goes against the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief that Genesis 1 must be read literally. I'll go where the evidence is.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

yec is older than that. agustine himself recanted.
then i will put that physical death thing into this perspective.

if the lord planned us to die and be with him in heaven, why put us on earth in the first place?

if lord is using natural selection and mutations to create then we can honestly, very honestly call that cruel. for when a child dies of sids. that natural selection in action! or sickle cell etc.

think about it.

really think about it. forget the evoluntary brainwashing and think about it from a theoligical point of view. it doesnt make sense to say that he is using that and planned men to die when it also says in isiah that a lion and lamb shall lie down together along with the serpent and a child shall lead them all. odd if he wanted to have death in beggining.

i couldnt imigane being adam and watching eve or my child die and (for this argument, the fall never occured) and watching and knowing God is allowing her to die for no reason.

 

[Luci]

I'm not sure myself what to believe about God's original intentions for humanity. But if there was no physical death and humans and animals were still able to reproduce... how would it work in the long run?

 

[seekandlisten]

I had said this

The doctrine of young earth creationism came about long after Jesus. (added by men no?) I remember reading something about the 15th-16th century being when YEC was introduced. I may be wrong on that figure, but if someone wants to claim otherwise show me.

To which you replied.

yec is older than that. agustine himself recanted.

Where is this evidence? When I look up to see what Augustine had to say on matters I come across things like I posted earlier and him saying stuff like this, which could almost be taken as 'prophetic' when you look at what we are dealing with today.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

He also goes on to say this.

"The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


Interesting eh?

if the lord planned us to die and be with him in heaven, why put us on earth in the first place?

That's a good question. If one is going to believe in the Bible and the prayer where it says 'Gods will be done', then shouldn't one put what they believe into action and let God do things his way?

if lord is using natural selection and mutations to create then we can honestly, very honestly call that cruel. for when a child dies of sids. that natural selection in action! or sickle cell etc.

I don't understand how you come to this line of thinking?

think about it.

I have and still do. Do you ever ponder that maybe your position could be flawed? I do so I make sure it can stand up against opposition because that is the funny thing about truth.

really think about it. forget the evoluntary brainwashing and think about it from a theoligical point of view.

Funny thing is I had to overcome the religious brainwashing that creation happened 6000 years ago and that evolution was the devil's way of tricking us into falling away from God. True story. I used to take a very strong stance against evolution and funny thing is when the 'evidence' I was using (from creationist sources) wouldn't stand up to 'real life' I went looking and found a lot of deception on the creationist's side and unfounded lies about what evolution really was. So does one stand on the side of deception and misinformation or on the side of facts?

One thing I found when researching opposing sources to look at what evidence both sides are presenting. Funny thing I find is that creationists tend to use alleged 'evidence' to discredit evolution and make bogus claims about it whereas the 'evidence' for evolution explains what's going on. Maybe if creationists spent more time looking at science to make their point they would have a case, or find that their assumptions are false.

it doesnt make sense to say that he is using that and planned men to die when it also says in isiah that a lion and lamb shall lie down together along with the serpent and a child shall lead them all. odd if he wanted to have death in beggining.

I think sometimes we get caught up in trying to figure out God's will and not enough time 'living'. I also suggest maybe looking at non literal meanings of passages sometimes. The bible does say many times, 'for those with ears to hear'. Do you think that is talking about our physical ears or our hearts?

i couldnt imigane being adam and watching eve or my child die and (for this argument, the fall never occured) and watching and knowing God is allowing her to die for no reason.

Yet doesn't the Bible claim that everything happens for a reason and that there is a time for everything even death? Shouldn't dying and leaving this world be a joyful experience for a Christian with what they believe?

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

first you err on the afterlife for a christian,

jesus says that meek shall inherent the earth.

that means when we die, those are dead before the tribulation shall not see the millenial reign, they will be resurrected and put back on the EARTH. and one of God's promises is this no more sorrows, death, and sickness.
heaven is temporary for the christian, i do believe that we saints will judge the sinners in the millienal reign and i will look into that part of the revalation.
if adam who had access and walked and talked with the father. why was death needed. he had a relationship with him for god walked and talked with him in the cool of the day.

upon the fall what happen man can no longer have that level of relationship with GOD. even with Jesus' work that isnt at that level. we cant see the Lord in person and in full glory and live.

now imagine , this from your view point, you are watching your wife die, and God, your friend, dad and creators says nothing, tell you nothing to why eve is dying.(again she isnt sinning). what would you ask.

in light of fall you cant blame God because he said that the earth wouldnt produce fruit but the sweat of your forehead and that eve would have child pains and the she would be subjected under adams rule and her desire will be under his.


it is from that light. is why i would call God evil for allowing death to be before the fall. how is it paradise when i going die.


man is more than just a spirit, he has a soul and a body. only angels are spirits. and the lord is himself.


when you say that we shouldnt worry and accept death , i do, but that is for a reason, not for nothing.

God is glorified by my death as sin is being buried. and my suffering will bring him glory. and a closer relationship

but before the fall, how can adam and eve be any closer to god, He walked with them.

so thier suffering is meaningless before the fall.

 

[jasoncran]

sirach isnt part of my bible nor is it in the mainline protestant and it isnt considered cannonical nor inspired.

only the catholics and some others use the apochrya. does this make agustine bad, no going to delve into all things about agustine.

the jews of today dont accept the apochrya.

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.[41] At the same time, however, Augustine did not hold to an age of the earth of millions or more years, as the block quotation below from The City of God indicates. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up


and also take note on that fact the he said and believes that adam and eve were mortal. if that is true then how could they talk with God, for no mortal men could talk with the lord since the fall and live.

 

[seekandlisten]

first you err on the afterlife for a christian,

There is much speculation and wishful thinking about what happens after we die, I doubt you hold the only explanation of what happens.

jesus says that meek shall inherent the earth.

Do you disagree?

that means when we die, those are dead before the tribulation shall not see the millenial reign, they will be resurrected and put back on the EARTH. and one of God's promises is this no more sorrows, death, and sickness.
heaven is temporary for the christian,

That's one perception of it.

i do believe that we saints will judge the sinners in the millienal reign and i will look into that part of the revalation.

One must be without sin before he can judge no?

if adam who had access and walked and talked with the father. why was death needed. he had a relationship with him for god walked and talked with him in the cool of the day.

A spiritual death is not the same as a physical death. Just like a literal reading is not the same as an allegorical reading.

upon the fall what happen man can no longer have that level of relationship with GOD. even with Jesus' work that isnt at that level. we cant see the Lord in person and in full glory and live.

The Bible does 'paint' the picture of a falling away and a return to being 'one with God'.

now imagine , this from your view point, you are watching your wife die, and God, your friend, dad and creators says nothing, tell you nothing to why eve is dying.(again she isnt sinning). what would you ask.

Are we talking about what I want or 'God's will' here? Do I 'accept' or 'decline' is more or less what you are asking?

in light of fall you cant blame God because he said that the earth wouldnt produce fruit but the sweat of your forehead and that eve would have child pains and the she would be subjected under adams rule and her desire will be under his.

I don't blame God for anything. Karma, or in your case 'reaping what one sows'.

I also don't believe that 'God' designates women to be under man's 'rule'. We have equal rights.

it is from that light. is why i would call God evil for allowing death to be before the fall. how is it paradise when i going die.

Doesn't the bible teach that those who are 'of God' will not die? I think you may be confusing physical death and spiritual death once again.

man is more than just a spirit,

Sounds nice, but I wonder where this belief is founded.

he has a soul and a body.

The soul would be speculation and the body is 'of this world' so one wouldn't think you would need it where you are planning on going.

only angels are spirits.

Sounds like more speculation without basis?

and the lord is himself.

Is he himself or does he have 3 personalities? I'm just messing with you on that one, don't take offense as I don't wish to debate this point.

when you say that we shouldnt worry and accept death , i do, but that is for a reason, not for nothing.

Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death.
Ayn Rand

but before the fall, how can adam and eve be any closer to god, He walked with them.

seems pretty close.

so thier suffering is meaningless before the fall.

Where does this idea that there had to be suffering before the fall come from?

Some useful advice - Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand


cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

sirach isnt part of my bible nor is it in the mainline protestant and it isnt considered cannonical nor inspired.

I am unfamiliar with the Sirach?

the jews of today dont accept the apochrya.

I don't need the approval of others to read and see what something has to say. I'm not sure how this is relevant though?

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.[41] At the same time, however, Augustine did not hold to an age of the earth of millions or more years, as the block quotation below from The City of God indicates. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up

I wouldn't take wikipedia's version of someone's commentary as a credible source of information.

Augustine did have this to say in regards to Scripture.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

and also take note on that fact the he said and believes that adam and eve were mortal.

I would assume you consider them to be immortal? I know of many different opinions on Adam and Eve.

if that is true then how could they talk with God, for no mortal men could talk with the lord since the fall and live.

People claim to talk to the Lord all the time. Are they lying?

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

ah that is from wikipedia as well that you quoted, before the fall there were immortal, if they werent then why even charge them with sin,

you also failed to what immortality is to a christian. it aint singing forever and ever in heaven. that isnt what the bible actually says. the earth will be new one, and so will the heaveans.

that is why i keep telling you that if were take genesis as nonliteral then all of the bibles talk of the end time must taken as such. does this mean we will know what the end times will be to the tooth, no revalation is quite clear on the what will happen when the city of jerusalem comes and describes it in detail hard to measure something that is allegorical.

you also havent address on why the apohcrya is thrown out.

you have made your mind up and only choose what you want to see.and this is third time you have twisted what i have posted to fit your idea of "truth"
the first was the martial art thing, which was to show you that the martial arts is testable, and that mentality of yours we can never know the truth is same exposure i got from the martial arts

for aikido,judo, and karate-do(the two former are based on taoism,buddism and the later is mainly confusiscm, and all of them have zen) much of what you teach and preach

that is why i used them to show you how i used to think(past) like you.you claim that i have no right to tell other what to believe and yet here you are telling me what the truth is (its relative execpt science)


the next one is what is the concept of death to a christian. you have no clue on what christians actually believe, only what is said . salvation is expercienced and not just intellectualized. death has no hold over me but that doenst mean that i am like or love it, or be joyious to have pain and suffering in my life.

any christian who talks about the trials is thankful for them as they drew closer to the lord, but doesnt mean they enoyed the suffering, rather they enjoyed the fruits of perfection by it!

big difference..

last is this one, you totally misunderstood what augustine was actually talking about, he was talking about the unsaved trying to grasp the bible. i got that long before i even was looking for that line.

 

[seekandlisten]

ah that is from wikipedia as well that you quoted

The only difference is my quote was taken from De Genesi ad literam, while yours was taken from a short bit in which the information was taken from Davis A Young's article about Augustine.

before the fall there were immortal, if they werent then why even charge them with sin

Does the Bible say they were immortal physical beings or does it insinuate a more allegorical picture?

you also failed to what immortality is to a christian. it aint singing forever and ever in heaven. that isnt what the bible actually says. the earth will be new one, and so will the heaveans.

Did I disagree with this explanation?

that is why i keep telling you that if were take genesis as nonliteral then all of the bibles talk of the end time must taken as such. does this mean we will know what the end times will be to the tooth, no revalation is quite clear on the what will happen when the city of jerusalem comes and describes it in detail hard to measure something that is allegorical.

This is why I suggested looking into what Newton had to say on the subject. He studied ancient languages, studied the Latin and Greek transcripts, was very interested in Biblical prophecy and put forth some writings on Daniel and Revelation and Biblical prophecy in general in his many years of study. I would think his credentials for such studies are far above mine so I find what he has to say on the matter interesting.

One can't just take their own interpretation of Revelation as fact if it doesn't follow other criteria set forth with Biblical prophecy right?

you also havent address on why the apohcrya is thrown out.

I don't understand why I must? The same authority that decided the Bible you approve of accepts it so where does the problem lie?

Personally I have read much of the Nag Hammadi Library but I'm unsure of what the apocrypha refers to to comment on it.

you have made your mind up and only choose what you want to see.

I try and remain open to teaching. I tend to go where the evidence points though. There are many contradictions that just don't add up in light of what we have as evidence, both scientific and what early Christians thought, in excepting a YEC.

and this is third time you have twisted what i have posted to fit your idea of "truth"

I apologize if I twisted anything. You would have to point this out for me though. I merely present my opinion and ask questions in a way that hopefully provokes thought from which one can than go look at the evidence themselves and make up their minds. I'm not out to convince you that I'm right if that's what you think.

the first was the martial art thing, which was to show you that the martial arts is testable, and that mentality of yours we can never know the truth is same exposure i got from the martial arts

Maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at there. I though you were presenting the fact that there are many different forms of fighting yet still comes down to one way to deal with the 'knife guys'. My comment related it back to religion in that as soon as you decide one way is the best and raise it up above all others you may miss out on something as you are no longer open to teaching when you have all the answers.

Let me put it this way, if you devote all your time to learning everything in relation to 'ground fighting' when you meet a 'stand up fighter' you will be unprepared. For myself, I try to remain open to teaching wherever it may come from so that I don't miss out. If all teaching comes from God, like you say, then what if 'He' decides to use a Muslim man to teach me and I write off what he has to say because I don't agree with his religion?

I used to argue that all religions have something to say but have come to realize there are things I disagree with in all religions so why bother pretending like they are all good. I don't agree with religion for my own personal reasons and I know that depending on a religion to get me somewhere isn't going to happen.

for aikido,judo, and karate-do(the two former are based on taoism,buddism and the later is mainly confusiscm, and all of them have zen) much of what you teach and preach

You will find that my philosophy on life falls very close to what is taught in Zen Buddhism. I don't however depend on this philosophy to bring me to 'salvation'.

that is why i used them to show you how i used to think(past) like you.you claim that i have no right to tell other what to believe and yet here you are telling me what the truth is (its relative execpt science)

I hope I didn't come across as claiming to be right. I merely state my opinion in a way that hopefully others will study what's out there on their own if they question it. I definitely do not have all the answers and am corrected daily.

the next one is what is the concept of death to a christian. you have no clue on what christians actually believe, only what is said .

I was raised in a Christian home(Baptist/Mennonite) and went to church until I was 20. I spent all of my 12 years of school in a Christian school. I also was very much involved in youth groups and youth events in high school. I was baptized a Pentecostal when I was 18. Unless your faith varies drastically from mainstream Protestants I think I know what you are referring to.

salvation is expercienced and not just intellectualized.

I have never claimed otherwise have I? I believe salvation is given when the time comes though. I don't agree with OSAS or that we decide who has been given 'salvation' and who hasn't as that is not our decision to make. Maybe you have different definition of salvation that what I understand it to be?

death has no hold over me but that doenst mean that i am like or love it, or be joyious to have pain and suffering in my life.

That makes sense. I would assume the recognition of what it means and accepting it as a part of life is more what I was talking about. Suffering is not joyous but I think the bible claims one can have joy in knowing what is ahead right? Is this not what you believe?

any christian who talks about the trials is thankful for them as they drew closer to the lord, but doesnt mean they enoyed the suffering, rather they enjoyed the fruits of perfection by it!

Life is about trials and how we react to them. Do we overcome and endure or do we fall and collapse under it's weight?

last is this one, you totally misunderstood what augustine was actually talking about, he was talking about the unsaved trying to grasp the bible. i got that long before i even was looking for that line.

I got from it that when talking of matters that do not pertain to salvation it may be important to look at what is being presented and the expertise behind the presenter. After all he did say this.

In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

He also spoke of how preconceived ideas may get in the way of new knowledge and Christians would be thought of as 'idiotic' in clinging to those ideas in light of physical evidence.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

Source for above quotes - De Genesi ad literam

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

first i never said or meant to imply that creationism and its attempt to reconcile the bible to science is doable. truth is if one believes in the omniscience of God. man will never know how he did it as we can only at best speculate.

the attempt to create viable rna as proof of sponteaneous formation in the primordial ooze violate occum's razor as we cant assume or really know what was there to cause it since it wasnt done by an intellegence.

the reason i dont accept thiestic evolution is this
Life is about trials and how we react to them. Do we overcome and endure or do we fall and collapse under it's weight

what is purpose of that before the fall? adam and eve already had a relationship with God. trials and suchlike bring us closer to Christlike.

adam had full acess and no barriers to the holy trinity before the fall. if he was mortal and bore the body of sin he couldnt see or talk to God like that, openly without first falling on the ground. and then be lifted up. see revalaton 1

that is why i dont accept evolution,Did God really call adam and eve Good, when they will die when isnt done with man. and what of those that didnt sin. surely adam and eve werent the only ones that were around if evolution is true.


augustine knew and acknowledge that we shouldnt get too caught up in the how and knew that we couldnt graps how the lord did it.

howeever evolution doesnt fit theologically very easily.


we arent meant to be in heaven or hell by design, after the fall for the sinner its hell, and heaven(temporarily) and then the earth.

then theres the verse describing the curse because of sin. i wonder how that is reconciled if evolution is true. for the curse and the hardhsip is used to bring men to God. if it was before the fall then why? they had God already.

 

[seekandlisten]

first i never said or meant to imply that creationism and its attempt to reconcile the bible to science is doable. truth is if one believes in the omniscience of God. man will never know how he did it as we can only at best speculate.

Why must the Bible fit in with science. They are two different fields related to two different worlds, the spiritual and the physical. The funny thing is the Bible isn't in contradiction with science(evolution) when you recognize the difference. YEC is however in contradiction with science. Does the problem lie with the evidence or the premise?

the attempt to create viable rna as proof of sponteaneous formation in the primordial ooze violate occum's razor as we cant assume or really know what was there to cause it since it wasnt done by an intellegence.

Many attribute the beginning of life to 'God' while accepting evolution as the way 'He' brought about life. Maybe you misunderstand how it all works. Barbarian is very informative.

the reason i dont accept thiestic evolution is this
Life is about trials and how we react to them. Do we overcome and endure or do we fall and collapse under it's weight

what is purpose of that before the fall? adam and eve already had a relationship with God. trials and suchlike bring us closer to Christlike.

Once again trying to treat the physical life and spiritual life as the same thing.

adam had full acess and no barriers to the holy trinity before the fall. if he was mortal and bore the body of sin he couldnt see or talk to God like that, openly without first falling on the ground. and then be lifted up. see revalaton 1

You will also notice that many take life for granted until confronted with death.

surely adam and eve werent the only ones that were around if evolution is true.

I'm not the one making that claim.

howeever evolution doesnt fit theologically very easily.

they belong in two different fields that's why. 'Truth' however can't contradict the evidence.


cheers

 

[jasoncran]

one must be truth and the other false. i believe that Lord did create, how he exaactly did it is difficult to prove.

if he used evolution then the bible has some issues as its written so that suffering is only occuring after the fall.

that is my premise.

i could get into function of science via francis bacon philosophy on it vs what it is for now. that will say much.

 

[jasoncran]

what are we studying if nothing did it. what is science for? to study disorder?

bacon assummed that universe had a creator and look at the world around him like that, and that universe had set rules and was guided by them.

barbarian is assuming this when looks at the universe and assumes evolution does it.

he wanted to understand the creator better by looking the creation itself. that is for another thread, as i must look into his views more.

are we really wanting to learn from the "nothing" that did create the world.

 

[seekandlisten]

one must be truth and the other false. i believe that Lord did create, how he exaactly did it is difficult to prove.

We do have evidence that points to the best answer we got though.

if he used evolution then the bible has some issues as its written so that suffering is only occuring after the fall.

The bible relates to 'salvation' and evolution relates to the physical world and the progression of life on earth to what we have today.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

you dont understand.

mixing world views.
evolution is naturalsim
christianity is a world view. both are incompatible

that is what i was talking about the whole time.

one can't be a christain naturalist. hard to do.

 

[seekandlisten]

what are we studying if nothing did it. what is science for? to study disorder?

Many people claim God used evolution so I don't understand this statement? There clearly are laws that govern how the world works so I'm not sure of this 'disorder' you speak of?

bacon assummed that universe had a creator and look at the world around him like that, and that universe had set rules and was guided by them.

Many evolutionists believe there was a Creator as well and that the universe has laws that govern it so there is no contradiction except in the interpretation of what is out there.

barbarian is assuming this when looks at the universe and assumes evolution does it.

I'm pretty sure he follows the evidence, not his preconceived ideas. His credentials back his observations as well. I know my high school science teaching doesn't qualify me to draw conclusions from observation so I'll believe the credible people educated in their fields.

he wanted to understand the creator better by looking the creation itself. that is for another thread, as i must look into his views more.

I'm always interested in opposing views and the evidence they draw on. One can entertain a thought without having to accept it right away. I think Aristotle said something along those lines.

are we really wanting to learn from the "nothing" that did create the world.

?? I don't understand what you are saying here? I believe in 'God', I also approve of the way He does things.

cheers