The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!

[John]

It is based on logic, if they ate Jesus he would have...died, then came back to life just to die on the cross, i am pretty sure that part would not be omitted from the Bible.

No, people can lose parts of their body without dying.

Dude, just take a step back and look at what your arguing about... Cannibalism at the last supper, I know its not written "thou shalt not eat your neighbor" but sheesh :

 

[Rick W]

That reminds me of a part in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
The Orks captured Merry and Pippin and were carrying them to move quickly. The orders were that the two hobbits were to stay alive but one of the Orks wanted meat for a late night snack.
"What about their legs? They don't need their legs." :smt093

:o
:

 

[John]

That reminds me of a part in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
The Orks captured Merry and Pippin and were carrying them to move quickly. The orders were that the two hobbits were to stay alive but one of the Orks wanted meat for a late night snack.
"What about their legs? They don't need their legs." :smt093

:o
:

Funny : But last time i checked Jesus had legs on the cross so we can rule that out :-D

 

[stranger]

francisdesales wrote:

I believe God created an orderly universe, created man in His image and likeness, and created one set of male and female

Hi francis,

The construct was that Adam had an existing body (a creature that was not man) and God added the non-material faculties of soul, will etc thus finishing creating 'man.' This creature would presumeably have a body with blood would it not? A difficulty is introduced here since we know that the life is in the blood, or should I say the life was already in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

Adam would have a previous bloodline traceable through evolution to other creatures, ultimately even to bulls and goats whose life is also in their blood.

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Here we can agree on the 'literal'. If Adam's body and blood has its origins in the animal kingdom, as theistic evolution would maintain - then what does this say about the body and blood of Christ by association? What shadow does theistic evolution cast on the body and blood of Christ offered at the Eucharist?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It is based on logic, if they ate Jesus he would have...died, then came back to life just to die on the cross, i am pretty sure that part would not be omitted from the Bible.

No, people can lose parts of their body without dying.

Dude, just take a step back and look at what your arguing about... Cannibalism at the last supper, I know its not written "thou shalt not eat your neighbor" but sheesh :

.....

Why do you avoid the actual discussion in favor of arguing over a strawman?

The point is that you say that the passage regarding the last supper has to be figurative because it would not be logical. I am asking for you basis on that.

Christ could have cut off a finger. You can not disprove that. Now, I do not believe that is the case either, but that is because it does not seem to flow with the rest of the story. Not because of any actual evidence.

Now, follow along. Why is Genesis any different? To the overwhelming majority of the body of science, literal Genesis jives even less because of the evidence we see today. In fact (which has been the major point), there is MORE hard evidence for the figurative Gen over the figurative passage in during the last supper.

There is no evidence to say that the passage could NOT have been literal. There is hard evidence that Genesis could NOT have been literal.

You are missing the entire point.

 

[John]

There is no evidence to say that the passage could NOT have been literal. There is hard evidence that Genesis could NOT have been literal.

There is plenty of it, in fact i hold the majority. I've dove into the books and such and there is not a scrap of evidence that is convincing enough for me to accept a non literal account.

 

[francisdesales]

Because without it people are free to mucky it up i.e. evolution and old earth creation. I i stood in front of you and said, "i want these papers delivered tomorrow", would you stand there and think to your self " hmm, he said tomorrow but i he must have meant in hundreds of millions of years"

You didn't answer the question. You presume that "evolution", whatever that means, is false and that the Bible is scientifically claiming that the earth was created in 6 days. Now, if the Bible said that "the earth was literally created in six days", then we'd have an issue with science. However, the entire chapter is not literal genre. It is a typical creation story that teaches theological truths, MUCH different than the creation stories of the Babylonians, etc...

Where does the Sacred Writer make the statement that one MUST read Genesis 1 as literal history? Nowhere. As to your example, we are standing rigth in front of the person making the statement. We can know the "genre", the sense of what they are saying.

THIS, my friend, leads us to John 6:51, where people were standing RIGHT IN FRONT OF CHRIST, but YOU claim, 2000 years later, that Christ COULD NOT have meant those words literally (while the Jews on the ground DID take them literally....)

See, your very own argument nullifes your means of reading the Bible. Rather than allowing the Word of God to form your beliefs, you approach the Bible looking for verses to "prove" your previously held convictions on everything. Your very own manner of interpretating Scriptures shows that John 6 MUST be taken literally, since the hearers were right in front of Christ!!! How many times must Jesus say "truly, truly, unless you eat my flesh..." before it is understood literally. And yet, we have nothing said like this in Genesis 1, and you think it is literal fact...

The heresy is that you advocate old earth creationism and evolution, its not scriptural and unsupported when you dig into the books on the topic as i have. I suggest taking a deep dive into the controversy before blindly accepting what man has placed on your plate. IMHO.

I am not advocating "old earth creationism and evolution". I am saying that the current scientific thought on this subject is not necessarily a contradiction to Genesis 1, if we read Genesis 1 as a literary genre that was not MEANT to be taken literally in the realm of science. The "days" is just a means of expressing the orderly creation of God, a plan in action, a plan that was made out of love (have you read the Babylonian creation story, for example? Compare them!!!)

Now. I see that evolution certainly can be incorrect. It has holes in it. It very well may be incorrect, and I DO NOT CARE!!! This effects my faith NONE whatsoever! It is the literal readers who feel threatened by evolution in ANY form. Your attempt to show science as wrong by using a Bible, however, is folly, because the Bible is not a scientific book, no more than science can teach us anything about metaphysics or about God and who He is...

If you could explain how "advocating" old creationism and evolution" has anything to do with denying that God created the universe, that God created one pair of men, male and female, that this man sinned, a sin that effected the entire race, that man was created in God's image and likeness, and so forth, than I guess you'd be correct. However, I am not afraid of the big bad boggie man called "SCIENCE". It is fundamental Christians that cannot accept that they are misinterpreting Scriptures that make the rest of us Christians look like we are still in the 16th century and are out of touch with reality...

The fact of the matter is that ALL of creation on the earth was created in more than 6 days. Nothing to do with evolution. This is just simple fact, and that is the end of the story. It is perfectly obvious that the earth is not flat, nor was it created in one day.

Regards

 

[St Francis]

francisdesales, There is only to ways to look at Genesis, you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation.....

You mean like when Jesus says "This is my body" at the last supper? There's a flip-flop situation, where we take Jesus' words at face value, and protestants do not. So we can both agree, at least in principal, that some scriptures are to be taken literally, and some are not.

Now, who decides when which is which? That brings us to a whole other subject of Sola Scriptura, and who has the authority to intepret sciptures, etc. etc.

We have to decide based on the logical.....

Hold on a sec: In your first statement, you say, "you can take it for what it says or make up your own interpretation", but now you say, "We have to decide based on the logical." If I may quote one of your earlier questions to me, who are you to decide which is which?

..i hold the majority..

The majority would be Catholics.

 

[John]

.

You presume that "evolution", whatever that means, is false

No i base it upon evidence.

Now, if the Bible said that "the earth was literally created in six days", then we'd have an issue with science.

Its bad science based on a hill of lies and frauds.

Where does the Sacred Writer make the statement that one MUST read Genesis 1 as literal history?

He does not say that. But I think after this discussion i am gonna change my view on God/Bible, Jesus did not literally die for us it was all metaphorical.

See, your very own argument nullifes your means of reading the Bible. Rather than allowing the Word of God to form your beliefs, you approach the Bible looking for verses to "prove" your previously held convictions on everything.

No i read the Bible and its right there, we do not need a guru to ell us what it means, i already shown the absurdness of making assumptions in the Bible look at my "The Gap Theory tread"

Your attempt to show science as wrong by using a Bible, however, is folly, because the Bible is not a scientific book, no more than science can teach us anything about metaphysics or about God and who He is...

The Bible has many scientific claims in it, did you know that somethings that were said in the Bible were not discovered until recently? The springs of the sea is one example.

However, I am not afraid of the big bad boggie man called "SCIENCE". It is fundamental Christians that cannot accept that they are misinterpreting Scriptures that make the rest of us Christians look like we are still in the 16th century and are out of touch with reality...

All evidence to the contrary my friend.

The fact of the matter is that ALL of creation on the earth was created in more than 6 days. Nothing to do with evolution. This is just simple fact, and that is the end of the story. It is perfectly obvious that the earth is not flat, nor was it created in one day.

Stop saying "fact" its not a fact and it never was, its only a fact to what the Bible calls the willingly ignorant. Do you remember that verse?

If you still have any desire to search for truth on this subject read this. http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe ... lution.htm

I'm Done.

 

[John]

Last post, Here is my YouTube channel, watch the first 2 videos you see there, they were done by a friend and are each 1 minute long but they get the job done. http://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMuise

 

[francisdesales]

I'm Done.

OK. I hope you are able to see the inconsistency on how you interpret Scriptures with this little exercise.

Just to recap...

Genesis 1 is absolute scientific FACT, although we have man-made writings on cave walls that are much older than 6000 years old. We have fossils that are well over a billion years old...
We have no evidence that Genesis 1 is MEANT to be absolute scientific fact, either. The language does not necessitate it. Yet, you take it that way, despite the huge amount of OBSERVABLE evidence to the contrary. No faith is required to know that the earth is old. Really old. Have you noticed that only the literal-Biblicists are afraid of science?

On the other hand, when GOD HIMSELF says "TRULY, TRULY, unless you eat my flesh you shall not have life within you" and repeats it several times, and the Jews actually LEAVE Christ because THEY understood it as literal (and Jesus didn't call them back and say "wait, I was speaking metaphorically, guys") and early Christianity is unanimous in teaching that Christ's words were literal - YOU tell me it is metaphorical, based on what again??? YOUR logic??? ;-)

Yea, something smells funny here... Inconsistent bible interpretations. I hope you see the hypocrisy you are trying to pass off here.

Regards

 

[St Francis]

I'm Done.

OK. I hope you are able to see the inconsistency on how you interpret Scriptures with this little exercise.

Just to recap...

Genesis 1 is absolute scientific FACT, although we have man-made writings on cave walls that are much older than 6000 years old. We have fossils that are well over a billion years old...
We have no evidence that Genesis 1 is MEANT to be absolute scientific fact, either. The language does not necessitate it. Yet, you take it that way, despite the huge amount of OBSERVABLE evidence to the contrary. No faith is required to know that the earth is old. Really old. Have you noticed that only the literal-Biblicists are afraid of science?

On the other hand, when GOD HIMSELF says "TRULY, TRULY, unless you eat my flesh you shall not have life within you" and repeats it several times, and the Jews actually LEAVE Christ because THEY understood it as literal (and Jesus didn't call them back and say "wait, I was speaking metaphorically, guys") and early Christianity is unanimous in teaching that Christ's words were literal - YOU tell me it is metaphorical, based on what again??? YOUR logic??? ;-)

Yea, something smells funny here... Inconsistent bible interpretations. I hope you see the hypocrisy you are trying to pass off here.

Regards

Thats some tough love.

 

[kingdavid]

that is just more evidence that the apostate church enjoying her spiritual fornications with that false prophet/ beast man-the pope.

 

[follower of Christ]

Old earth contradicts the Scriptures
by WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
This article is just to briefly cover a point or two from Gods word to show that old earth theory is contradictory to the bibles account 'as written'.
This article is making no claims about interpretation of 'scientific' evidence, but solely about the wording of Genesis in Gods account

Supporting Evidence
The bible does not show that the earth is millions of years old
The Hebrew word for 'day' can mean long ages unless it is further defined by the surrounding context....'an evening and a morning' is that context.
Especially when a 'day' is very clearly defined in Genesis itself.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Gen 1:3-5 KJV)

We have a planet called earth and we have a source of light.
We have a dark side of this planet earth and a light side, separated by God into 'day' and Night'
All that is needed now for an evening and a morning is rotation.
An evening and a morning show fairly conclusively that we are talking about a single earth rotation day.

There was a man named Adam made on the 6th day of creation.
This mans genealogy can be show all the way up to Christ in the scriptures, even with many of the lifespans given in exact years.

Scripture does not support that the earth has been here for even millions of years, let alone billions.

2.0
The 'light'.

Scripture shows that the sun was created on day 4 of the creation week.

And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(Gen 1:16-19 MKJV)

Plantlife, however, was created on day 3.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(Gen 1:11-13 MKJV)

Since we know factually that plant life, all life on this planet for the most part, REQUIRES the energy and light given from our sun to exist, the logical assumption is that this light set into place with the words 'let their be light' MUST have been equivalent TO the sun to keep this plant life alive until the sun was put into place on day 4.

3.0
Things we infer from the text;

-the 'light' mimicked the sun...which the evidence supports conclusively since there was plant life being supported before the suns creation on day 4.

-the earth rotated ....which the evidence supports conclusively since this 'evening and morning' are spoken of in the same exact manner both BEFORE the sun was created on day 4 and AFTER the sun was created on day 4.

We see that the situation was the same both BEFORE the sun was created and AFTER it was created. There was 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' and plant life existed, leaving no other logical conclusion that can be inferred from the texts OTHER than this light created before the sun MUST have been similar to our sun.

4.0
The man Adam

Man was created on the 6th day of creation.
God rested on the 7th day.

Here in Genesis 1 we see the creation of this man and woman.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ............. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(Gen 1:27-31 KJV)

And here in Genesis 2 we see more detail added to about this man and woman who were created from the dust of the earth and then put into the garden.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
(Gen 2:7-8 KJV)

We know that Adam was the first 'man' because that is exactly what scripture confirms.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
(1Co 15:45 KJV)

The man Adam and his wife Eve were created on the 6th day of creation.
This man Adam lived to be 930 years old.

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. And he died.

If the creation days were not single earth rotation days, then Adam would have had to have been older than scripture accounts for.
If the creation days were even a decade long, then Adam would be ten years older than he was, thus scriptures account of his lifespan is false.


5.0

*IF* the man Adam was not a real man, then neither does it seem that any of these others were given that scripture speak about all these men as being literal and even giving their lifespans.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Gen 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Gen 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
Gen 5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Gen 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
Gen 5:13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Gen 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
Gen 5:16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Gen 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
Gen 5:19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Gen 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
Gen 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Gen 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
Gen 5:26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Gen 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
Gen 5:30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm Done.

OK. I hope you are able to see the inconsistency on how you interpret Scriptures with this little exercise.

Just to recap...

Genesis 1 is absolute scientific FACT, although we have man-made writings on cave walls that are much older than 6000 years old. We have fossils that are well over a billion years old...
We have no evidence that Genesis 1 is MEANT to be absolute scientific fact, either. The language does not necessitate it.

Actually it does.
Can I take it that you are an evolutionist ?

Yet, you take it that way, despite the huge amount of OBSERVABLE evidence to the contrary.

NO friend.....INTERPRETATION of evidence that presumes the contrary. There are no sticky notes on that evidence. There is ONLY interpretation thereof.
Evolution Theory fallacy doesnt have its own evidence. We ALL look at the same evidence and interpret to fit into whatever viewpoint we wish to believe.

No faith is required to know that the earth is old. Really old. Have you noticed that only the literal-Biblicists are afraid of science?

PUH-lease ...
Science is hardly anything we're afraid of simply because we reject YOUR interpretation of evidence.

On the other hand, when GOD HIMSELF says "TRULY, TRULY, unless you eat my flesh you shall not have life within you" and repeats it several times, and the Jews actually LEAVE Christ because THEY understood it as literal (and Jesus didn't call them back and say "wait, I was speaking metaphorically, guys") and early Christianity is unanimous in teaching that Christ's words were literal - YOU tell me it is metaphorical, based on what again??? YOUR logic??? ;-)

Did Jesus FEED the disciples His LITERAL flesh, friend, or wine and bread ?
What does the TEXT SAY ?
He gave them WINE and BREAD...not literal flesh and literal blood.
No, it doesnt have Jesus hacking off limbs to feed anyone, so the texts themselves PROVE that His intent is metaphorical.
If Jesus had meant it literally He could have opened a vein right there and LITERALLY fed them His blood.

Yea, something smells funny here... Inconsistent bible interpretations.

I agree entirely.

I hope you see the hypocrisy you are trying to pass off here.

Regards

Ditto

 

[follower of Christ]

Dude, just take a step back and look at what your arguing about... Cannibalism at the last supper, I know its not written "thou shalt not eat your neighbor" but sheesh :

It would seem that Catholic doctrine does promote cannibalism in what it teaches on this point.

 

[Lewis]

The Vatican said WHAT ? I better stay out of this one. :mad :angry :bicker :fullauto :twopistols :boxing

 

[A-Christian]

The Vatican said WHAT ? I better stay out of this one.

Put your guns and gloves down Lewis and go back to the first page and read from the start before you blow a vessle.

 

[Imagican]

About time.

MOST of what is believed and accepted in the PROTESTANT world CAME from the Catholics.

About time that at least ONE of the churches came to it's senses.

The Bible and science do NOT offer contradiction. Only the INTERPRETATION of the Bible and science offer such opposite understanding.

For those able to read without the 'pre-conceived' notions brought ABOUT BY THE CHURCHES, it is apparent that there were TWO SEPARATE creations. Men and women, (male and female HUMANS), were created FIRST, and THEN Adam was created. And we have NO IDEA how much TIME elapsed BETWEEN these TWO creations.

The FIRST creation, though not actually described thus, was MOST LIKELY a more CRUDE form of humanity. Adam, on the other hand, was created as a 'more advanced human'. And MOST of the PROBLEMS between man and God CAME ABOUT becuase of the MINGLING of the TWO, beginning with Cain and his wife.

Perhaps the Catholic Church IS an evolving religion. And given TIME, perhaps they COULD 'come around' to a more specific TRUTH. The question is: Is there ENOUGH TIME?

Blessings,

MEC