[_ Old Earth _] The Development Stage Is Fatal

[Barbarian]

There's no inconsistency in evolution, and Adam and Eve as real people.

 

[jasoncran]

There's no inconsistency in evolution, and Adam and Eve as real people.

but the question if that if they werent accordint jwu's intepration then what?

i wanted to clarify that.

and even if they are real and evolution is the means god used. they are the only that sinned and the others are where? and how did the world repopulate.
for only the seed of adam and eve survive not the others. and where are they? in heaven?
you see where this is going?

 

[jwu]

First off, i am neutral regarding the question if Adam and Eve were literal people. I think they were not, even the name indicates this: Adam means "dust", "human", "mankind" in Hebrew.
But if they were a special couple in human history, then that doesn't really affect the interpretation

again if we mate evolution the creation story, what of the first adam and eve? they alone only sinned?if they did and others didnt were are the others?

I don't understand the problem...isn't this mostly an issue for a literal interpretation with a literal couple of people?

dead? and where? heaven for what? if so they could have died for us as they knew no sin and were perfect and able to fulfill the law.

I can't follow you there...please post a bit more details, not just outbursts of thoughts.

do you see that conudrum for a lot of questions on why this or that arrises with adam and eve.

Of course it does so for someone who holds to a literal interpretation - in the same way as i have questions about it. Please answer the question about what carnivores ate before the fall if they weren't allowed to kill prey.

the prophetic statement by god when he told eve that a seed of woman shall crush satan and satan shall bruise the hell of the seed.

What is the problem here, please elaborate. I really don't see it.

adam is in the lineage of jesus.

Which means to tell us that Jesus was born as a descendant of sinning men. Whether Adam was a single literal person or a group of humans is of no relevance to this point, it is made either way.

if they were only a literally device what then? what of those didnt sin, if only adam and eve did and were cast out from the presence of the lord whom did the men mate with each other( sister).

This a specific problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis, not the allegorical one. If Adam and Eve refers to a group of early humans, then there are partners to mate with. It's the literal interpretation with only Adam and Eve as real humans that has to resort to incest - or to the injustice of God banishing other innocent humans from paradise for Adam and Eve's sin.

evolution to me cant fit in as its makes a whole lot of hard questions on the end time prophetic vision of john.

It necessarily changes some interpretatons.
Btw, you are aware that the book of revelations has been controversial right from the start (early 2nd century AD), and that there was a lot of dispute about whether it should be accepted in Canon, and that the authorship still is doubtful? I would consider it to be the least authoritative book of the entire Bible.

i dont call dying on the new earth and coming back again to reapeat a paradise. nor the begining the same.

Why not, assuming a phyisical world in first instance? And what would carnivores eat there?

 

[jasoncran]

isaiah states the the lion shall lie down with the lamb,and the snake and a child shall lead them all. that doesnt sound like carnivore.

if we are to throw away revalation then, get rid of daniel, the gospels themselves, ezekiel,parts of isiah, joel.

 

[jwu]

isaiah states the the lion shall lie down with the lamb,and the snake and a child shall lead them all. that doesnt sound like carnivore.

Unless it's a metaphor for overall peace among mankind. BTW, what if lions become extinct?

What are carnivores going to eat otherwise? It's even worse for many carnivorous insects - there is no way e.g. spiders could survive on anything else than prey, their entire method of ingestion is highly specialized towards that.
And what about the entirely arbitrary decision that apparently declares plants to be non-living things? How about bacteria?
A literal reading of that passage results in a logical nightmare, whereas a metaphorical one even provides a much deeper meaning.

if we are to throw away revalation then, get rid of daniel, the gospels themselves, ezekiel,parts of isiah, joel.

Why? Revelation was written after any of these, so they don't base themselves on it.

 

[jasoncran]

because they base each other on it. if the bible wants to be vague and not mention names and tells the event and focus on that, it will and has.

the book of daniel speaks about the antichrist. so does jesus. and so does revalation.
the bible inspired for a reason.

most names have a meaning. i suppose enoch isnt real, either.

then if the lion goes extinct, that we have a problem as the lord is able to save us.lol
he cant see the future no guide the events to where he wants it then he is too weak to be god.

are you saved? believe the bible at all.

 

[jwu]

because they base each other on it. if the bible wants to be vague and not mention names and tells the event and focus on that, it will and has.

How can they be based on revelation if they were written hundreds or even a thousand years before it? If they were dependent on it, they couldn't have made sense to people all the way until revelation was written, could they?

the book of daniel speaks about the antichrist. so does jesus. and so does revalation.
the bible inspired for a reason.

I bet many of the apocrypha speak of the antichrist too - that doesn't make them a foundation of the Bible though. I hope you see that this line of reasoning is fallacious.

most names have a meaning. i suppose enoch isnt real, either.

Unlike for Genesis and Adam, i see no good case to interprete Enoch that way. Do you?

then if the lion goes extinct, that we have a problem as the lord is able to save us.lol
he cant see the future no guide the events to where he wants it then he is too weak to be god.

So could trying to drive lions extinct be a way to provide scientific evidence for God? It'd necessarily fail after all.

are you saved? believe the bible at all.

I consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian.

Please try to answer the question what carnivores would eat, in particular those which are totally dependent on feeding on prey.

 

[jasoncran]

God is able to change the universe, if you simply are able to accept that.

if not then why be a christian. if he created in it the first place, surely he can make it the way he wants it to be.

not a scientific answer but i asked if you actually believe the bible and that cross , and resurrection is real. for if cant accept the verses on what the end time may be like . how does the death and resurrection of christ doable for you..

to me you have picked the bible to fit the concepts you seem to able to grasp. am i able to understand genesis and how god did it, no, do i fully know all that theres to know of the bible, no. is this needed for salvation? no if god didnt want the bible to be the way it is then i guess what we have isnt his word, and we aren't saved as the lord is a liar and very decietful

i find it hard to seem that the bible would be written with great descriptions that are repeated in shape and form on the end times, only to be a literary device.though it can be both.

the very arrangement of the order of the gospels point to vision of heaven, the way the isrealites postitioned themselves is in regard to the taberacle in the wilderness is like the visions of heavean, ezekiel saw what john saw in heavan, so did isiah in part. both daniel and john saw the lord in a similiar manner.

you seem to accept the big bang, that there was nothing, and viola it (the universe) came to be yet it has no prime mover to control it and that laws that govern it were always there. how when time and all that is in the physicall universe didnt exist before the universe itself. that takes the same faith as my belief that god can make the world they he wants and alter at will.

 

[jasoncran]

i will correct myself the authors referred to each other at times or either were having similiar visions.ie ezekiel and john, of heaven, daniel and john of the lord and the beast with the horns and the antichrist.

and God can use men to do his will. if not then why the apostles?
if we are driving the lion to extinction as you say then certainly god could place it on a person's heart to save them.

who says that taking them literally( the signs in revalation) makes those things shallow? i see much meaning in them.

by your thinking we should make the cross a literary device, it would be more reasonable to accept that
do you believe that the lord healed the sick, the apostles raised the dead, and the blind were healed and demons were cast out?

 

[jwu]

i will correct myself the authors referred to each other at times or either were having similiar visions.ie ezekiel and john, of heaven, daniel and john of the lord and the beast with the horns and the antichrist.

Please cite an actual example.

and God can use men to do his will. if not then why the apostles?
if we are driving the lion to extinction as you say then certainly god could place it on a person's heart to save them.

Yes, and that must absolutely succeed then. Any attempt to drive lions to extinction must fail.

who says that taking them literally( the signs in revalation) makes those things shallow? i see much meaning in them.

What is that meaning, please explain it.

by your thinking we should make the cross a literary device, it would be more reasonable to accept that
do you believe that the lord healed the sick, the apostles raised the dead, and the blind were healed and demons were cast out?

No, what makes you think so? Just because based on physical evidence and literary evidence i find myself compelled to interprete one particular part of the Bible to be non-literal, that doesn't mean that all parts should.

o me you have picked the bible to fit the concepts you seem to able to grasp.

Is taking a look at God's handwork - the earth - not a legitimate technique to help with one's interpretation of scripture? Should we discount anything we see around us?

no. is this needed for salvation? no if god didnt want the bible to be the way it is then i guess what we have isnt his word, and we aren't saved as the lord is a liar and very decietful

God wants the Bible to be exactly the way it is - but our human interpretations of it are fallible. Hence all the different denominations.

the very arrangement of the order of the gospels point to vision of heaven, the way the isrealites postitioned themselves is in regard to the taberacle in the wilderness is like the visions of heavean, ezekiel saw what john saw in heavan, so did isiah in part. both daniel and john saw the lord in a similiar manner.

Ah, but that doesn't make them depend on the book of revelation, does it?

you seem to accept the big bang, that there was nothing, and viola it (the universe) came to be yet it has no prime mover to control it and that laws that govern it were always there. how when time and all that is in the physicall universe didnt exist before the universe itself. that takes the same faith as my belief that god can make the world they he wants and alter at will.

Well, i believe that God started the Big Bang and then he could let things work it out on their own. While God certainly could alter the world at will, i think He doesn't need to do so for He created it in a way so that it can sort these things out on its own.

Please explain what e.g. spiders will eat when there is no more physical death. C'mon, i've asked this several times now. You surely realize that this is a very important question, one that cannot simply be ignored if one interpretes that passage literally.

By the way, in general it would be very helpful if you'd answer with quotations of the parts that you're replying to. Otherwise it is very difficult to follow.

 

[jasoncran]

you are wanting to reconcile science with the bible. and vice versa.

when you can answer this then you will have your answer to much of the general idea of the argument i'm making

upon death where will we be? and reconcile with the verse that says the meek shall inherent the earth.

the verses that john saw of jesus in a vision

revalation 1:14 to 17.

daniel sees the similiar in daniel 10:5,6

you are asking me to prove prophecy via the scientific method. you want me to go it's all a literary device when its a little hard to understand.

this is like asking me to prove the lord was part man and god at the same time, and give dna as proof for the side that is man.

 

[jwu]

you are wanting to reconcile science with the bible. and vice versa.

Yes. The Bible must be compatible with the physical evidence that we see in the earth, mustn't it?

upon death where will we be? and reconcile with the verse that says the meek shall inherent the earth.

Please elaborate. I don't get the point.

the verses that john saw of jesus in a vision

revalation 1:14 to 17.

daniel sees the similiar in daniel 10:5,6

So if someone were to discount revelation, how would that make daniel wrong?

you are asking me to prove prophecy via the scientific method. you want me to go it's all a literary device when its a little hard to understand.

No i just insist that a literal interpretation must make logical sense. You seem to imply that lions and other predators were vegetarians at some time and will become vegetarians again. I just want to know how this could be possible, given that there is no way how they could survive on a vegetarian diet nowadays (spiders couldn't even eat plants!).
If you wish to invoke a miracle to deal with this, please say it directly, or explain how it could work without a miracle. Otherwise there is a gaping hole in your interpretation. You may choose to ignore it, but i cannot.

 

[jasoncran]

you are thinking now, as in the earth at present.

the toe states that someway some how this all happens by chance. and to add what biology professor stated to me in a book that he bought called what darwin didnt know written by athiest who dont accept the toe. and arent buying creationism either. how does a species bee, by chance know how to guide the cockroach that he stung twice the first to paralyze the second lay eggs and then uses the cockroach's antannea to guide the insect to his hive all by chance.

then also using your reasoning how does evolution explain intellegence? or morality.

it takes faith to beleive that it happen by a process that DOESN"T need God at all.

 

[jasoncran]

you are wanting to reconcile science with the bible. and vice versa.

Yes. The Bible must be compatible with the physical evidence that we see in the earth, mustn't it?

upon death where will we be? and reconcile with the verse that says the meek shall inherent the earth.

Please elaborate. I don't get the point.
of course not, we live on the earth in a BODY that dies if i take it your way. but the bible does it not say that those born again will have eternal life. so how does something that DIES live forever.
[quote:r0foh9d9]the verses that john saw of jesus in a vision

revalation 1:14 to 17.

daniel sees the similiar in daniel 10:5,6

So if someone were to discount revelation, how would that make daniel wrong?because the bible is a whole unit. if not then one could be just as saved by being a hebrew.(judaism). the lord comforts the christian with that book, if you read it and are able to grasp the parts that talk about his return.

you are asking me to prove prophecy via the scientific method. you want me to go it's all a literary device when its a little hard to understand.

No i just insist that a literal interpretation must make logical sense. You seem to imply that lions and other predators were vegetarians at some time and will become vegetarians again. I just want to know how this could be possible, given that there is no way how they could survive on a vegetarian diet nowadays (spiders couldn't even eat plants!).
If you wish to invoke a miracle to deal with this, please say it directly, or explain how it could work without a miracle. Otherwise there is a gaping hole in your interpretation. You may choose to ignore it, but i cannot.[/quote:r0foh9d9]

 

[jwu]

the toe states that someway some how this all happens by chance. and to add what biology professor stated to me in a book that he bought called what darwin didnt know written by athiest who dont accept the toe. and arent buying creationism either. how does a species bee, by chance know how to guide the cockroach that he stung twice the first to paralyze the second lay eggs and then uses the cockroach's antannea to guide the insect to his hive all by chance.

Trial and error. Or do you propose that God created such a sadistic behaviour, one that kills the victim cockroach eventually? How do you reconcile this belief with the no death before the fall belief?

then also using your reasoning how does evolution explain intellegence? or morality.

it takes faith to beleive that it happen by a process that DOESN"T need God at all.

That deserves a thread on its own. Please make one if you wish to talk about it in detail.

I'll make one about vegetarian predators as well. Hopefully i'll get an answer to my question then.

 

[jasoncran]

trial and error so that would take an intellegence now wouldnt it? and that bee has to be able to store its lessened learned and pass on the opps and so on.

if you cant accept that god is able to make something change.

lets deviate on this.

if the age of men in the genesis is a literary device then what is the meaning of those numbers?
what is the parable of the lion and serpent and so on meant to you.
what is your version of the end times?

do i know how the lord does change things? no. i cant really understand the trinity let alone how scientifically a man could be born from a virgin.

when you answer this above post then i may answer you further since you have insulted my views.

 

[jwu]

trial and error so that would take an intellegence now wouldnt it? and that bee has to be able to store its lessened learned and pass on the opps and so on.

Mutation/natural selection does not require intelligence but it works as an "engine" to drive trial and error developments nonetheless.

if you cant accept that god is able to make something change.

I do - what makes you think that i don't?

if the age of men in the genesis is a literary device then what is the meaning of those numbers?

I'm not saying that they are a literary device.

what is the parable of the lion and serpent and so on meant to you.

It's a parable, as you said yourself! It's not meant to be taken literally by definition!

what is your version of the end times?

I'm agnostic about it.

do i know how the lord does change things? no. i cant really understand the trinity let alone how scientifically a man could be born from a virgin.

And there is no scientific evidence that no miracle happened there 2010 years ago, nor would we expect such a miracle to leave physical evidence.
The creation of the world ex nihilo however would leave evidence.

when you answer this above post then i may answer you further since you have insulted my views.

How have i insulted your views?`I really don't understand.

 

[jasoncran]

trial and error so that would take an intellegence now wouldnt it? and that bee has to be able to store its lessened learned and pass on the opps and so on.

Mutation/natural selection does not require intelligence but it works as an "engine" to drive trial and error developments nonetheless.
so what made the thing( bee ) just jump on say he let me sting this and decide what will happen, did it sit there and go hmm that sting stopped him, and moved on or did he conduct experiments to see what happened, what was the mechanism that drove the bee to fall on the cockroach.

if you cant accept that god is able to make something change.

I do - what makes you think that i don't?because you have claimed how and want to know in exact terms how it happens. let me put this way if the lord cured of cancer and you know it and the docs show how that the growth is gone, would you want to know he the lord did it by naturals means

[quote:2rmn50vl]if the age of men in the genesis is a literary device then what is the meaning of those numbers?

I'm not saying that they are a literary device.

what is the parable of the lion and serpent and so on meant to you.

It's a parable, as you said yourself! It's not meant to be taken literally by definition!i am asking you what the parable is.

what is your version of the end times?

I'm agnostic about it.

do i know how the lord does change things? no. i cant really understand the trinity let alone how scientifically a man could be born from a virgin.

And there is no scientific evidence that no miracle happened there 2010 years ago, nor would we expect such a miracle to leave physical evidence.
The creation of the world ex nihilo however would leave evidence.so what your view on the cross as that is just as impossible to believe for you , so it appears. do you expect that to line up with science? that was prophecied too, and the lord did talk about that.

if one is going to call somethings that must be literal and others a parable. why isnt the cross a parable to you? i mean if we did a study and cruficied mean alive to see how many would live after the death and resurrection,how many would see life?

when you answer this above post then i may answer you further since you have insulted my views.

How have i insulted your views?`I really don't understand.[/quote:2rmn50vl]
nevermind

 

[jasoncran]

i asked you if you are a born agian? your respond i am a christian
now i'm not judging you just be up front

where will be when you die? will you be with the lord? will he call you a child of his. hell?

since you have an agnostic view the end times where your soul will be is revalent.

i dont need to know how this all came to be. i wouldnt be able to understand it all and it wouldnt make a difference in my life. i debate against the toe for this reason, it's hard to reconcile theologically. i would have to be like your belief. if you notice even barbarian who is a thiestic evolutionist hasnt answered this.

he has stated that he believes in miracles and that adam and eve are real persons. i dont agree with his thiestic view on the toe but he accepts the bible , and the Lord can heal and perform miracles. i have no clue to what his end times view is. i know that he believes that the faithful will be on the earth.

 

[jwu]

so what made the thing( bee ) just jump on say he let me sting this and decide what will happen, did it sit there and go hmm that sting stopped him, and moved on or did he conduct experiments to see what happened, what was the mechanism that drove the bee to fall on the cockroach.

The genes for stinging stuff already were in place. Eventually a gene gained prevalence that made bees specifically target cockroaches, as those were more successful at procreating than those that did not. And later on genes that made the bee stimulate the cockroaches antenna to make them move in a specific way could develop. Billions of bees who did it the wrong way perished, but those few who did it the right way could procreate and pass on their genes.

because you have claimed how and want to know in exact terms how it happens. let me put this way if the lord cured of cancer and you know it and the docs show how that the growth is gone, would you want to know he the lord did it by naturals means

Of course i would let doctors examine me to search for clues how it happened. In case of the creation of the world there fortunately are plenty of clues.

i am asking you what the parable is.

You mean, how i interprete them? Or do you want me to recite them?

so what your view on the cross as that is just as impossible to believe for you , so it appears. do you expect that to line up with science? that was prophecied too, and the lord did talk about that.

There is no negative evidence that Jesus didn't die on the cross and was resurrected on the third day. That's not an event for which we'd expect to find positive evidence either, so lack thereof proves nothing.

The creation of the world ex nihilo 6000 years ago is different. It's an event for which we can expect to find physical evidence. But we don't. On the other hand we find plenty of evidence that the world is much, much older.

if one is going to call somethings that must be literal and others a parable. why isnt the cross a parable to you? i mean if we did a study and cruficied mean alive to see how many would live after the death and resurrection,how many would see life?

Because Jesus was a miracle case by definition, and the nature of this miracle is one of which we don't expect to find evidence either way after 2000 years. There is nothing physical left to study after all. Much unlike a spontaneous creation of the world ex nihilo. That's something that must have left evidence.

i asked you if you are a born agian? your respond i am a christian
now i'm not judging you just be up front

You didn't ask if i were "born again", but whether i was "saved". That's not the same in my understanding of the terms. No, i am not "born again" in the sense of certain American branches of Protestant Christianity.

where will be when you die? will you be with the lord? will he call you a child of his. hell?

The former, methinks.

i debate against the toe for this reason, it's hard to reconcile theologically. i would have to be like your belief. if you notice even barbarian who is a thiestic evolutionist hasnt answered this.

Theistic evolution doesn't have any official doctrine. Hence i may very well disagree with Barb on many matters. If you feel that he hasn't answered a specific question, then you should address it directly towards him. He'll likely respond.