[__ Science __ ] Man was in Pangaea

[Cooper]

Not sure what you are talking about. Israel came along after the flood not in Adam's time.

So how far back does Adam go?

 

[Barbarian]

I would wonder about your faith more than mine.

Maybe that's an important clue for you. Your faith is between you and God, and that should be where your focus is. I'm not criticizing the mote in your eye, of course.

Evolution would say that death was part of God's good plan.

It's the way He created things. Adam could not live without something else dying. He made Adam mortal, because His plan was for Adam's living soul, not his corruptable body. Indeed, in Genesis three, God even expresses concern that Adam might become immortal and takes steps to see that he does not. This shouldn't bother you; a Christian should never fear death.

But death came by Adam.

But not the death you seem to fear. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but live on physically for many years thereafter. If God is truthful, then the death is a spiritual one. This is the death that Jesus saved us from. If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically some day. Rather, He defeated spiritual death and set us free, if we are willing to take that gift.

This is the natural outworking of an Old Earth model. Jesus becomes a victim of God rather then the Saviour of mankind.

That's not what Christians believe. Jesus was a sacrifice for us, but he was not a victim. He defeated death and rose again on the third day, and walked and spoke with His friends for a time. That's a victor, not a victim.

Why would you put your faith in a victim?

I wouldn't say that One who defeated death is a victim. Why would you?

So if death was not the payment for sin... why was Jesus necessary.

Because the death was spiritual and therefore we needed a spiritual Savior.

 

[Barbarian]

God hovered. if He was moving (as He was) then the light moved. Hence morning and Evening dark and light. He is light. Later the sun took over. There was always light.

That's not a good excuse. The moon is a light source, but moonrise is not morning. By definition, a sun is required for a literal morning.

 

[dwb001]

Maybe that's an important clue for you. Your faith is between you and God, and that should be where your focus is. I'm not criticizing the mote in your eye, of course.

Thanks.

It's the way He created things. Adam could not live without something else dying. He made Adam mortal, because His plan was for Adam's living soul, not his corruptable body. Indeed, in Genesis three, God even expresses concern that Adam might become immortal and takes steps to see that he does not. This shouldn't bother you; a Christian should never fear death.

What living thing died for Adam to live? Only plants and they don't have the breath of life in them. So your point is incorrect.

But not the death you seem to fear. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but live on physically for many years thereafter. If God is truthful, then the death is a spiritual one. This is the death that Jesus saved us from. If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically some day. Rather, He defeated spiritual death and set us free, if we are willing to take that gift.

I don't fear death. Maybe you should ask a question before jumping to conclusions.
So death, cancer, sickness, carnivorous behaviour are all part of God's good plan?
Please show where that is in scripture.

That's not what Christians believe. Jesus was a sacrifice for us, but he was not a victim. He defeated death and rose again on the third day, and walked and spoke with His friends for a time. That's a victor, not a victim.

I didn't say that is what Christians believe. But it is the natural, logical outworking of evolution.

I wouldn't say that One who defeated death is a victim. Why would you?

Evolution says it... when taken to it's logical end.

Because the death was spiritual and therefore we needed a spiritual Savior.

So why did Jesus have to physically die?
Couldn't Jesus just have had a spiritual death to be our spiritual Saviour?

 

[dwb001]

So how far back does Adam go?

6k years to the 6th day of Creation.

 

[daddd]

So how far back does Adam go?

To the beginning as Jesus said.

 

[daddd]

That's not a good excuse. The moon is a light source, but moonrise is not morning. By definition, a sun is required for a literal morning.

The moon came when the sun did. The definition in the beginning, before the sun eas created was not related to the sun.

 

[Barbarian]

The moon came when the sun did. The definition in the beginning, before the sun eas created was not related to the sun.

Sorry, that's wrong. In Hebrew and in English, "morning" and "evening" are tied to the sun. Not to some other light in the sky. This is the text itself telling us that it's not literal history.

 

[Barbarian]

What living thing died for Adam to live? Only plants and they don't have the breath of life in them. So your point is incorrect.

Sorry, plants are alive. No point in denial. If you have to redefine common terms to make your new doctrine fit, that should be a clue.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't fear death. Maybe you should ask a question before jumping to conclusions.
So death, cancer, sickness, carnivorous behaviour are all part of God's good plan?
Please show where that is in scripture.

God created carnivores. I'm aware that some modern revisionists have invented the idea that tigers ate radishes or whatever. Not possible. Cats need specific amino acids in meat to survive. And no, I don't think inventing the idea that God corrupted tigers to get even with Adam and Eve is a reasonable addition to scripture. Remember, death is not a bad thing for His people. It's our transition to a new and more full life with Him as He intended.

I didn't say that is what Christians believe. But it is the natural, logical outworking of evolution.

Nope. It's just a creationist invention, they badly want other Christians to believe. But it's false. Evolution is just part of God's creation. And it has nothing at all to say about the supernatural. Certainly not the creationist idea of Jesus as a victim. That's just projection by creationists.

So why did Jesus have to physically die?

Fulfilment of the prophesy. As I pointed out, if Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We all eventually die physically. But if you will accept Him, you don't have to die spiritually. Jesus is the New Adam, who dies physically like all men (He was fully man, remember) But He rose again, defeating death in a way that all could see and believe. And His sacrifice as a man, was therefore offered up to God for us.

 

[daddd]

Sorry, that's wrong. In Hebrew and in English, "morning" and "evening" are tied to the sun. Not to some other light in the sky. This is the text itself telling us that it's not literal history.

No they are not. There was no Hebrew or English in creation week! No sun either until after plants were made. The morning and evening in day one and two was not tied to the sun.

 

[Cooper]

To the beginning as Jesus said.

And the beginning was 6,000 earth years ago, despite the Bible telling us God's time is different from our time.

Are you the Noah Ark man?
..

 

[daddd]

And the beginning was 6,000 earth years ago, despite the Bible telling us God's time is different from our time.

Are you the Noah Ark man?
..

God did not give the account of creation in 'God's time' whatever that is supposed to be. He gave it in days.

 

[Cooper]

God did not give the account of creation in 'God's time' whatever that is supposed to be. He gave it in days.

A thousand years is as a day in the sight of the Lord.

 

[Cooper]

God's heavenly time is not our earthly time.

 

[dwb001]

Sorry, plants are alive. No point in denial. If you have to redefine common terms to make your new doctrine fit, that should be a clue.

Would you please actually read what I post.
I said that plants don't have the breath of life in them.
Now as for them being alive... was that how they were viewed 6k years ago?
Your modern ideas of what is alive or not don't matter as the Bible was not written in the 20th century.

Stars falling to Earth in the Bible is nonsense if you say that stars are giant balls of gas burning in outer space... but if you rightly say that in the original text the word for star is not referring to a 20th century star... but simply a light in the night sky, then you have no problem with stars falling to Earth.

Common terms should not be messed with... like what a day is. You would like me to change the common idea of what a day is but you will not accept the common usage of alive in the early century usage. Eisegesis at work.

 

[dwb001]

God created carnivores. I'm aware that some modern revisionists have invented the idea that tigers ate radishes or whatever. Not possible. Cats need specific amino acids in meat to survive. And no, I don't think inventing the idea that God corrupted tigers to get even with Adam and Eve is a reasonable addition to scripture. Remember, death is not a bad thing for His people. It's our transition to a new and more full life with Him as He intended.

Nope. Where is your proof that Creationists invented the idea of God corrupting tigers?

Nope. It's just a creationist invention, they badly want other Christians to believe. But it's false. Evolution is just part of God's creation. And it has nothing at all to say about the supernatural. Certainly not the creationist idea of Jesus as a victim. That's just projection by creationists.

Again... please show your proof that it is a creationists invention.
You just saying something is made up is not proof it is or isn't.
I just followed your logic to it's end.

If it is a creationists creation that Adam brought death into the world... then the early Church were Creationist.
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Evolution... would not allow for the following verse to be true either.
1Tim 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And with evolution... why would a genealogy end with Adam to God? Why not to the "missing link"? "...son of Adam, which was the son of a ring tailed lemur"?
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Fulfilment of the prophesy. As I pointed out, if Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We all eventually die physically. But if you will accept Him, you don't have to die spiritually. Jesus is the New Adam, who dies physically like all men (He was fully man, remember) But He rose again, defeating death in a way that all could see and believe. And His sacrifice as a man, was therefore offered up to God for us.

But you haven't answered why physical death is needed for spiritual life.

An old earth philosophy does it's best to poke all kinds of holes in the Bible message.
So if you want to follow an OE mindset... don't expect the world to accept your Jesus.
Why would they follow someone who can't keep the story straight?

 

[dwb001]

A thousand years is as a day in the sight of the Lord.

You forgot the other half of that verse.
Which would seem to indicate that 1000 years to God is but a day.
Therefore they cancel each other out.

And it doesn't say which is the God day or if the 1000 years is the God years.
So your label of a God day does not hold up.

 

[daddd]

A thousand years is as a day in the sight of the Lord.

And Jesus died and rose again in three days. He fasted 40 days. He gave us exact years and months and days in prophesy. The flood lasted so many days. People live so many years. Plants were made a few days before the sun. To man, He gives us days for our life and world. When the creation days were marked out as evenings and mornings also, it is insulting to the spirit of the words of God to disrespect the clear meaning.

 

[daddd]

Would you please actually read what I post.
I said that plants don't have the breath of life in them.
Now as for them being alive... was that how they were viewed 6k years ago?
Your modern ideas of what is alive or not don't matter as the Bible was not written in the 20th century.

Stars falling to Earth in the Bible is nonsense if you say that stars are giant balls of gas burning in outer space... but if you rightly say that in the original text the word for star is not referring to a 20th century star... but simply a light in the night sky, then you have no problem with stars falling to Earth.

Common terms should not be messed with... like what a day is. You would like me to change the common idea of what a day is but you will not accept the common usage of alive in the early century usage. Eisegesis at work.

I just noticed that Barb accuses others of of making up some 'new doctrine' if they do not disrespect and disbelieve the simple record God gave us.