[_ Old Earth _] Thread for creatioist 'proofs'

[Guest]

That was a LOT of reading just to get to this point in the thread. :o

You have misunderstood the workings of God. Sin has passed down through the generations from Adam, not through Eve. That is why God has made different roles for men and women, and it just pisses the devil off.

I've heard this idea before and it confused me then. How is it that, just because Mary was a woman, that "the sin nature" wasn't passed on? Is it really that one little sperm that causes all the trouble? And since we apparently ALL came from Adam, that makes Mary, as well, from "the generations from Adam". This her blood (that was being passed from mother to baby through the umbilical cord) was in Jesus too.


As a side note, . . . . .I find it curious that Solo would use the worldly usage of the word, "pisses", . . . . . . as a Moderator of this Christian board. :-?

Do you attend an Assemblies of God Church? How old are you? Does it surprise you that the word "pisseth" is in the Bible a few times. It is an old English word that means to urinate. If it offends you, then you probably are much more offended that some people would rather subject the savior to ridicule by claiming that he was sinner. Also, you should talk with your pastor about how the sin of Adam passed onto to all generations. Let me know what you find out. I am settled with the truth, and hope that you get there also. Thanks for the post.

I DO attend an A/G church and am 37. Have been in the A/G since 1980 and in Christianity from birth. I understand that pisseth may be in the Bible, but in today's time, to say that something "pissed off" someone is a bit crude, but that's in my opinion. so. . . I know that my wife would not like me using that phrase, lest she strike me down . . . :

Anyway, about what I said about sin and how it is passed. I still don't see how a person can say that just because Jesus only came from Mary that He didn't inherit the same sin nature. It confuses me that only when a woman's egg is united with a man's sperm that the sin nature is transfered. :-? To be honest, it sounds like an "answer" to a recently asked question (recent as in a few decades or so) that wasn't thought of before, thus no question as to the "sin nature" and the baby Jesus.

 

[Solo]

That was a LOT of reading just to get to this point in the thread. :o

You have misunderstood the workings of God. Sin has passed down through the generations from Adam, not through Eve. That is why God has made different roles for men and women, and it just pisses the devil off.

I've heard this idea before and it confused me then. How is it that, just because Mary was a woman, that "the sin nature" wasn't passed on? Is it really that one little sperm that causes all the trouble? And since we apparently ALL came from Adam, that makes Mary, as well, from "the generations from Adam". This her blood (that was being passed from mother to baby through the umbilical cord) was in Jesus too.


As a side note, . . . . .I find it curious that Solo would use the worldly usage of the word, "pisses", . . . . . . as a Moderator of this Christian board. :-?

Do you attend an Assemblies of God Church? How old are you? Does it surprise you that the word "pisseth" is in the Bible a few times. It is an old English word that means to urinate. If it offends you, then you probably are much more offended that some people would rather subject the savior to ridicule by claiming that he was sinner. Also, you should talk with your pastor about how the sin of Adam passed onto to all generations. Let me know what you find out. I am settled with the truth, and hope that you get there also. Thanks for the post.

I DO attend an A/G church and am 37. Have been in the A/G since 1980 and in Christianity from birth. I understand that pisseth may be in the Bible, but in today's time, to say that something "pissed off" someone is a bit crude, but that's in my opinion. so. . . I know that my wife would not like me using that phrase, lest she strike me down . . . :

Anyway, about what I said about sin and how it is passed. I still don't see how a person can say that just because Jesus only came from Mary that He didn't inherit the same sin nature. It confuses me that only when a woman's egg is united with a man's sperm that the sin nature is transfered. :-? To be honest, it sounds like an "answer" to a recently asked question (recent as in a few decades or so) that wasn't thought of before, thus no question as to the "sin nature" and the baby Jesus.

You will have to get God to settle your understanding in that regard. I recognize it as the role that God placed on Adam in being the one whom the responsibilitiy fell to in this matter.
Sin is a spiritual trait passed to mankind through Adam; it is not a physical trait, even though it effects the physical.

I know that Jesus was sinless according to the Word, therefore, there is no way that sin was transferred to Jesus, otherwise he would not have been the unblemished sacrificial attonement for the world's sin. One day we will know all of the ins and outs of God's plan and his Kingdom. As we look now and see as through a glass, we will one day see face to face.

God Bless.

 

[ArtGuy]

Anyway, about what I said about sin and how it is passed. I still don't see how a person can say that just because Jesus only came from Mary that He didn't inherit the same sin nature. It confuses me that only when a woman's egg is united with a man's sperm that the sin nature is transfered. :-? To be honest, it sounds like an "answer" to a recently asked question (recent as in a few decades or so) that wasn't thought of before, thus no question as to the "sin nature" and the baby Jesus.

I don't think exploring the science behind sin transfer is going to be terribly productive. Sin is a spiritual notion. Every person has it. Logically, you would have it as soon as you became a person, which would presumably be somewhere around conception, but whether it be fertlization, or implantation, or something else is somewhat academic, and not terribly relevant. I certainly don't think that it's meaningful to discuss which sex it came from. Historically, arguing that sin came from Eve has just been justification for treating women as substandard.

As to the sin nature of Jesus, I tend to believe that Jesus did inherit the sinful nature of man, but was able to resist it. You know, being son of God and all. It makes his feat that much more impressive if we suppose that he had to struggle to remain sinless. It's like having to study hard for a test to get an A versus just being naturally brilliant.

 

[Solo]

http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_original_sin.htm

http://www.carm.org/christadelphian/Jesus_nature.htm

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John 3:1-10

 

[Guest]

Thank you, Solo and Artguy. I see what you're saying. It being a spiritual sin nature having nothing to do with physiology.

If it were possible, then, could a person today be born, actually live a sinless life, and have no need of a sacrifice, thus go to Heaven anyway? Is this the "backbone" of those that believe in the "age of accountability"?

Are we getting off topic here? :

 

[ArtGuy]

If it were possible, then, could a person today be born, actually live a sinless life, and have no need of a sacrifice, thus go to Heaven anyway? Is this the "backbone" of those that believe in the "age of accountability"?

Are we getting off topic here? :

Interesting question. We know that infants who die go to heaven without having to explicitly accept Christ, because they're still innocent. Sin requires a deliberate effort and knowledge of right and wrong, so a two year old who lies or hits isn't really sinning - he simply doesn't know any better.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that one could live life without ever sinning, in the same way it's possible for an object to spontaneously achieve escape velocity, or quantum tunnel through a solid mass. That is, it could happen, but it's so tremendously unlikely as to be pointless to consider.

 

[-maranatha-]

Birds evolved from flying fishes, huh?
Of course evolution can´t be brought together with the book of Genesis.
The "death" of bacterias was no death, because I can´t remember bacterias being considered as living beings anywhere in scripture.
Normally people don´t speak or think of the death of bacterias... :roll:
Sabbath would be nonsense without a literal 6 day creation.
If one reads the word with open eyes he can also discover statements like: our body and its mortality is bad. How can that be when God originally created good?
And: How can birds be created together with fishes and before animals living on land?
Complete contradiction to the theory of evolution.

Some of you should read the letter to the Hebrews... there you can find a definition of "faith". It´s something like being convinced of a thing although you don´t see it. Don´t believe your eyes but God´s word. Faith is the root of wisdom as Salomo already knew.

 

[ArtGuy]

Birds evolved from flying fishes, huh?

Man, what?

 

[-maranatha-]

Birds evolved from flying fishes, huh?

Man, what?

The bible claims that birds and fishes were created on the same day; animals living on land were created on the following day. This shows that Genesis for evolution-beliefers is not only metaphoric or doesn´t refer to literal days, but also is just wrong.
Of course you can believe in evolution, but then you don´t consider scripture as infallible.
-> If you are a theistic evolutionist you must see the biblical account as wrong.

 

[jwu]

This shows that Genesis for evolution-beliefers is not only metaphoric or doesn´t refer to literal days, but also is just wrong.

If the days aren't literal and the whole thing is not supposed to be read as a history book, then why would the order matter?

Of course you can believe in evolution, but then you don´t consider scripture as infallible.

No-one should "believe" in evolution, but only accept it because of its evidence.
Personally i indeed do not consider the Bible to be infallible, but other theistic evolutionists do.

 

[ArtGuy]

Personally i indeed do not consider the Bible to be infallible, but other theistic evolutionists do.

Me, I consider the Bible to be infallible on points where it's actually trying to convey specific facts rather than general ideas. If Genesis is allegory, then it doesn't make the Bible fallible, because all that matters is the spiritual truth and general idea underlying the chapter - namely, that God created the universe (by whatever means), God created man (be it through evolution or not), man screwed up, and now we have sin. Everything else is minutae.

When Hiram made the vessel for Solomon, it was said to be 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across. OMG pi = 3.0? No, it just means that the Bible wasn't being precise - it was using approximation. The Bible isn't a math book any more than it is a biology book.

 

[-maranatha-]

Brothers, it´s ridiculous. The matter was the length of the "days". Now you already start to see Genesis as a fairy tale. Well, Jesus wasn´t God´s son - it´s just a metaphor. He didn´t leave the grave, but his spirit lives on, etc.. :roll:
That´s the consquence of disbelief: Wherever your eyes seem to tell you a different reality you reduce scripture´s authority.
Please stop trying to weaken the faith of Christians who don´t only believe what they want to believe or to lead them on a wrong way.
Faith is to be convinced of something although you don´t see it. Where´s your faith?
And well: there are good reasons not to believe in evolution. It´s highly unlikely in nearly all areas.

and: a vessel doesn´t need to be round...



God is an enemy of death, of physical death. The whole bible shows that. He hates it but you accuse him to have brought it into the world. It really hurts me to read such lies, especially when they come from a Christian.

1.Cor 15, 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.â€Â
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?â€Â

56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


Corruption here means the decay of bodies. This is God´s enemy and I´m glad it is. But it also shows, that he would never use evolution to create.
Amen!

PS: Keep cool. We´re saved. But as shown above it can be dangerous to read the word selective.

 

[jwu]

Brothers, it´s ridiculous. The matter was the length of the "days". Now you already start to see Genesis as a fairy tale. Well, Jesus wasn´t God´s son - it´s just a metaphor. He didn´t leave the grave, but his spirit lives on, etc..

Some parts being allegorical doesn't mean that all are. We just disagree about which ones are allegorical and which are literal.

Do you agree that it was not literal when Jesus called mustard "the least of all seeds"? Because we know that there are smaller seeds...

 

[-maranatha-]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/mustardseed.html

As I have shown: Even if there is allegoric language in the bible, because people should understand it, God would never have created by evolution because physical death is his enemy.

 

[jwu]

1.Cor 15, 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.â€Â
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?â€Â

How does one "put on undecay"?
And if it referred to physical death, why the reference to Hades, a spiritual place?

And why didn't Adam physically die when he ate from the tree, how about the "on the day thou shalt surely die" that is written about this?

Sorry, but the whole concept does not make any sense to me. Why would God care about physical death?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/mustardseed.html

Please note that Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local, Palestinian farmer might have "sowed in his field," i.e., a key qualifying phrase in verse 31. And it's absolutely true that the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world.

So the statement that it was the "least of all seeds" was not an absolute and literal statement, but has to be interpreted in the context of what was relevant to the people of this time.