Humans descended from monkeys

[evangelist6589]

You are actually correct, humans did not come from apes.

quantumfaith,

You have turned a simple April Fools Joke into a full fledged debate! It was only an April fools joke my goodness.

 

[quantumfaith]

quantumfaith,

You have turned a simple April Fools Joke into a full fledged debate! It was only an April fools joke my goodness.

My response was to perceived condescension regarding any form of evolution models. I respect and expect that MOST here to hold a VERY different position than myself on the issue, but I don't, like most, appreciate such. And so I linked a very basic article informing against the false idea that humanity evolved from primates. Evidence and science does not say that, rather it says that there is a relationship between humanity and primates back into the distant past.

 

[quantumfaith]

The Bible states man is made in the image of God. If man shared a common ancestor with an ape, how would this still be the case? Would the ape also be made in God's image since they had a common ancestor?

Jesus also would have been descended from a common ancestor, and ultimately from a single cell organism. Jesus has always been 100% God and 100% Man.

Webdog, I propose to you the Possibility that the "neshama" is that which instills the imago dei into humanity, making them distinct from creatures having simply the nefesh.

 

[webdog]

Doesn't that require God breathing that into an animal creating man? I can't find any commentary from literary scholars that state the creation account of man should be taken as symbolic or non literal.

 

[Van]

The Bible teaches that we were not there and therefore, we do not know how God created everything. The same arguments are posted time again, this is true or the opposite is true.

Darwin's theory has been completely debunked, that is why the current model is called neo-Darwinism. About the only common basic view is godless creation. It just happened.

For those actually interested in learning more about the Bible, why not do a study on the word translated as dust in Genesis 2:7.

 

[percho]

The Bible teaches that we were not there and therefore, we do not know how God created everything. The same arguments are posted time again, this is true or the opposite is true.

Darwin's theory has been completely debunked, that is why the current model is called neo-Darwinism. About the only common basic view is godless creation. It just happened.

For those actually interested in learning more about the Bible, why not do a study on the word translated as dust in Genesis 2:7.

Well I found this, and yes I find it interesting.


http://goddidntsaythat.com/2011/05/06/what-is-the-dust-of-the-ground-from-which-man-is-formed/

 

[quantumfaith]

Well I found this, and yes I find it interesting.


http://goddidntsaythat.com/2011/05/06/what-is-the-dust-of-the-ground-from-which-man-is-formed/

:thumbs:

My "view" is that this simply means that man was created and formed from the elements present in nature (the earth). There should be little doubt as to the connection of Adam and Adamah.

 

[OldRegular]

Quote of the Week: Spurgeon on evolution

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon ‘Hideous Discovery’, preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’

 

[Aaron]

Well I found this, and yes I find it interesting.


http://goddidntsaythat.com/2011/05/06/what-is-the-dust-of-the-ground-from-which-man-is-formed/

Seriously? You find a quibble over dust and dirt "interesting?"

 

[OldRegular]

Seriously? You find a quibble over dust and dirt "interesting?"

Perhaps they want to work it down to that "primeval ooze from which life sprang!" From dust to mud to ooze and then eureka, LIFE!

 

[quantumfaith]

Perhaps they want to work it down to that "primeval ooze from which life sprang!" From dust to mud to ooze and then eureka, LIFE!

"For nothing will be impossible with God." (Luke 1:37)

 

[Van]

Well I found this, and yes I find it interesting.
http://goddidntsaythat.com/2011/05/06/what-is-the-dust-of-the-ground-from-which-man-is-formed/

The linked article was interesting. It certainly showed one person's effort to determine what the Hebrew word "afar" was meant to convey to us. The article concluded "dirt" came closer to the intended message than dust.

How about thinking that afar refers to whatever God has provided for building. If you build with stones mud and straw, you are using "afar." Note if an animal is burned (on an alter) the remains, what had been used to form the animal, are called "afar."

Thus it is consistent with scripture to say man was formed from whatever God used, dirt, or mud, or water, or a primate.

 

[OldRegular]

"For nothing will be impossible with God." (Luke 1:37)

Well said considering that God speaks: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. [Hebrews 11:3]

 

[quantumfaith]

Well said considering that God speaks: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. [Hebrews 11:3]

Why would you think...if you do...that I do not "think" as one having faith? Simply because I do not fall into the same position(s) as my YEC family in Christ?If in fact, God used evolutionary means to create all living things, including humanity, I think of it as wonderfully beautiful and Magnificent revelation of Him.

 

[OldRegular]

Why would you think...if you do...that I do not "think" as one having faith? Simply because I do not fall into the same position(s) as my YEC family in Christ?If in fact, God used evolutionary means to create all living things, including humanity, I think of it as wonderfully beautiful and Magnificent revelation of Him.

Not really! Scripture tells us that death entered by Adam. Is that correct or is it not? Furthermore a process of survival of the fittest is hardly a

wonderfully beautiful and Magnificent revelation of Him.

in my opinion. Theistic evolution present a picture of God who had to try, try, and try again before He was able to craft a human in His own image. It is completely contrary to the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. I posted Scripture and questions earlier that apparently warranted no response!

Are you saying that for hundreds of thousands of years a man-like animal existed and at some point God gave a man and a woman a "soul". So what happened to all those man-like animals that God helped "evolve" but who had no soul.

Scripture tells us the following about this first man and woman who were given a soul:

Romans 5:14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Did death enter by Adam?

 

[quantumfaith]

Not really! Scripture tells us that death entered by Adam. Is that correct or is it not? Furthermore a process of survival of the fittest is hardly a in my opinion. Theistic evolution present a picture of God who had to try, try, and try again before He was able to craft a human in His own image. It is completely contrary to the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. I posted Scripture and questions earlier that apparently warranted no response!

I agree that death (separation from God) came through Adam. I do NOT agree with the view that theistic evolution in form requires "natural selection". I do not either, worship a God who has to try over and over again to "get it right". And certainly you know, "I think" you are going out on a limb if one holds to the fall as the immediate cause of physical death in humanity. Surely we see from scripture that this does not in fact occur. I know you do not "appreciate" Biologos, but the following is a good article.

http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall

 

[percho]

Did Romans 1:16-25 begin in chapter 3 of Genesis?

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Is that when God?

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Romans 1:24

These created in his image.

 

[OldRegular]

I do NOT agree with the view that theistic evolution in form requires "natural selection".

Biologic evolution according to evolutionists is a cruel, bloody process of natural selection. You apparently want to see this process as directed by the loving God revealed in Scripture in a loving way. There is a saying which I believe applies to you: You are "wanting to have your cake and eat it too!"

I do not either, worship a God who has to try over and over again to "get it right".

Then what is your concept of theistic evolution since you reject both "natural selection" and "try, try again."

And certainly you know, "I think" you are going out on a limb if one holds to the fall as the immediate cause of physical death in humanity.

Physical death does in fact occur. Adam, Eve and every living being since then has died with the exception of Enoch and Elijah. Genesis 2:17 reads as follows in Young's Literal Translation: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.’

When Adam sinned those processes which cause physical death were set in motion. God could have killed Adam and Eve immediately but had He done so there would have been no progeny and God would have had to start over!

Surely we see from scripture that this does not in fact occur.

I haven't seen that one yet. And as for BioLogos and animal death the Apostle Paul implies in Romans 8 that all of creation was affected by the fall.

19. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21. that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

 

[quantumfaith]

I do NOT agree with the view that theistic evolution in form requires "natural selection".

Biologic evolution according to evolutionists is a cruel, bloody process of natural selection. You apparently want to see this process as directed by the loving God revealed in Scripture in a loving way. There is a saying which I believe applies to you: You are "wanting to have your cake and eat it too!"

Then what is your concept of theistic evolution since you reject both "natural selection" and "try, try again."



Physical death does in fact occur. Adam, Eve and every living being since then has died with the exception of Enoch and Elijah. Genesis 2:17 reads as follows in Young's Literal Translation: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.’

When Adam sinned those processes which cause physical death were set in motion. God could have killed Adam and Eve immediately but had He done so there would have been no progeny and God would have had to start over!



I haven't seen that one yet. And as for BioLogos and animal death the Apostle Paul implies in Romans 8 that all of creation was affected by the fall.

19. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21. that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Don't we all "want our cake and eat it to"? I consider myself to be much more in the ID domain. What you said of evolution is true, if in fact you are a complete naturalist. If you could put your current position to the side for just a moment, do you think it IMPOSSIBLE that God has the ability to create using evolutionary means and changes. I agree that all of creation groans under the curse of humanity, but could that not also mean the inhumane manner in which mankind often treats animals. Man's first and primary responsibility after creation was one of stewardship. With the fall, man continues to prove what a poor job he does with that responsibility.

 

[OldRegular]

If you could put your current position to the side for just a moment, do you think it IMPOSSIBLE that God has the ability to create using evolutionary means and changes.

You say that God uses the evolutionary process to bring a creature to a certain state and then God decides to implant a soul {your post #14}. The immediate progenitors of Adam, and likewise a set of immediate progenitors for Eve, would presumably have all the characteristics of Adam including his intellect. So we have a population of these creatures intellectually equivalent to Adam and Eve consigned to the same death as an animal. Is this consistent with what is revealed about the nature of God. {I would note at this point that in my opinion the intellect of Adam, not the knowledge, was superior to that of Adam's progeny who through time suffer from the affects of the fall.}