Evolution and Catholicism vs the Bible

[BobRyan]

What is your "source of truth" - the Bible?

Then which is right - the Bible or evolution?

In the Bible God says we literally have a 7 day week - look at His own summary of the Genesis 1:2-2:4 "Account" -- historic "account"

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.

Irrefutable.

========================================

So much so that atheists have no problem admitting to what the text says -- even though they do not agree with its teaching.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’


That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not

===============================================================

Two groups:

Bible believing Christians are not in a conflict-of-interest on this Bible detail because they freely reject blind faith evolutionism - so no Bible bending the text of Genesis for them.

Atheists are not in a conflict of interest position on this Bible detail because they freely reject the Bible - so they too do not engage in Bible bending in Genesis as Dr Barr points out.

============================================================

But you will tell me that "there is another group" a third group -- T.E. "Theistic Evolutionists" of which many are Catholic.

Some T.E.'s will argue 'the Bible is wrong - unless you bend it - to fit evolution" because in their mind "Evolution is right" and the Bible - as written is wrong. This is the third group and it suffers from conflict-of-interest because it's prior agenda is to "marry the Bible to evolutionism" no matter what the text of the Bible actually says to the contrary.

Protestants may struggle with this more than Catholics since in the catholic model even "Bible burning" is ok when its intent is to desprive the laity of the Bible in their own language. In such a model the "source of truth" for the laity is the RCC -- not the Bible. So a "Bible is wrong - evolution is right" outcome does not damage the Catholic model at all.

Thoughts?

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin came to the conclusion that Bible-bending was out of the question and that faith in evolutionism meant the "Bible is wrong".

Once he got to "the Bible is wrong" - then he rejected Christianity - possibly because he did not give the Catholic option enough consideration. If the "source of truth" is the RCC and not the Bible - then when the RCC embraces faith in evolutionism - problem solved.

==========================================
Darwin -
Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

 

[utilyan]

You misrepresented the Catholic position.

Might as well add another vote option, Seventh day Adventist are correct - worshipping Satan and hating Jesus.


Catholics are given liberty on genesis account. We are not forced to any of the options you gave.


Things you folks should keep in mind. For example God created TIME. We didn't have a SUN and for a first day.......till the FOURTH DAY.

We had plants before we had stars, but we had stars before we had a SKY!

On the day Adam ate the fruit he would die, bout a thousand years later.


Notice how every piece ends with "there was an evening and there was a morning"

Or how every piece starts with "GOD SAID" and "let there be"

or how every piece has in the midde "God saw it was good"



I want you to grab a song or poem you like and force a direct translation from your language to another.

More then likely its not going to sound too great in the new language.

God creates heavens/sky day 1 puts objects in it day 4.
God creates water day 2, puts stuff in water day 5
God creates land day 3, puts stuff in land day 6

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him"
You could almost sing this.

The word universe means ONE SONG.


Now I'm not saying genesis is only a mere poem or that its wrong. I think we should take into account the precision genesis maybe mind blowingly over our heads in terms of comprehension.

Anyone who is a fan of ancient aliens or bible code, knows we shouldn't underestimate something based on being old.


If you go outside and get a tan.....that's evolution.

But if we get all super technical all animal embryos start looking the same, it all starts to look like "one animal" written in DNA code. DNA code is like computer programming code.....

The material I need to create you cost about 11 bucks and I can find in a walmart.
Obviously I am not God to know how to put it all together.

Matter cannot be destroyed. Everything that you are created from, the atoms and molecules, has been around since forever.

Every seven years your body has replaced every cell, only some of your brain has been around as old as you are.

The bible may say God made you from dust or dirt. What is dust or dirt?
That could mean particles, cellular even genetic material.

We don't know what happened with the dirt, if he baked it or boiled it, or if he changed the dust to cells, then ameba, to a rat, monkey, to dogs to man.

"7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground"

You can form a car from a mountain. But you go through getting doors, chairs, even qualifying as tiny house before it finally is a car.

My vote is genesis is way over your head, Just like when God gave Job the speech.

 

[utilyan]

The spirit of concession to paganism opened the way for a still further disregard of Heaven's authority. Satan, working through unconsecrated leaders of the church, tampered with the fourth commandment also, and essayed to set aside the ancient Sabbath, the day which God had blessed and sanctified (Genesis 2:2, 3), and in its stead to exalt the festival observed by the heathen as “the venerable day of the sun.” This change was not at first attempted openly. In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. -- Ellen G White Great Controversy Page 52


Seventh day Adventist say Catholics changed the day worship to SUNDAY to venerate the day of the SUN rather then keep on SATURDAY that worships the pagan god SATURN.

SUN<-day.

And Christians have worshipped on true Sabbath in the first CENTURIES. 200 years or more.....ALL Christians worshipped on Sabbath according to SDA.

A SDA believer needs to be guaranteed that Catholic church is evil because the entire foundation of their faith collapses if it doesn't.

The SUNDAY argument makes great sense if folks spoke English. The ancient pagans called it Solis in connection with sun.

You might be familiar with Latin-roman type languages like SPANISH. In Spanish Sunday is DOMINGO ie in Spanish it is "LORD's DAY". Christians have always called it LORD's DAY.

It would have made better sense that the early Christians would insist on calling it Solis or SUNDAY.




Now remember. Ellen G White prophetess of God dictated by God says Only the Sabbath was kept by ALL Christians for CENTURIES. I underlined it above.

What do the early church father say? Remember White says CENTURIES. So I'm going to squeeze that to first 200 years.



The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
Tertullian
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).

 

[BobRyan]

You misrepresented the Catholic position.

Might as well add another vote option, Seventh day Adventist are correct

How does that differ from option 1 -- "Bible is correct - 7 day creation week"??

Notice the text in the OP Gen 2:1-3 -- vs -- Ex 20:11

Details matter.

We are not forced to any of the options you gave.

The OP does not ask what you are forced to do - it asks for your thoughts - your opinion.
next.

Things you folks should keep in mind. For example God created TIME.
We didn't have a SUN and for a first day.......till the FOURTH DAY.

1. TIME is not created by our sun -- every scientist on the planet will admit to this -- atheist, catholic and protestant.

2. The evening and morning for each day in Genesis 1 require only an rotating planet and a single-side light source (of which God had several options -- being infinite God).

3. The texts given show hard-wired link from Ex 20:11 to Gen 2:1-3. Bible details that even the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies admit - point to a literal 7 day week in the creation account.

We had plants before we had stars, but we had stars before we had a SKY!

1. Neither of which are said in the text.
2. Both of which drive to the "Catholic option" that the text is wrong - and evolution is right.
3. All of which point to the Catholic solution where the RCC itself is the "source of truth" so having a Bible that is "wrong" does not matter.

Are you trying to make my case - or refute it??

On the day Adam ate the fruit he would die, bout a thousand years later.

Satan said Adam would not die. You seem to agree.
The Bible says Adam did die - and needed to be born again. What is more at the end of Genesis 3 Adam is doomed to the first death - that very day. And dies spiritually - that very day. Both spiritual and physical death were his doom -- that every day.

Was God "merciful" in interrupting the certain-death penalty - and interurrpting it with the Gospel instead? Some say yes. Apparently you settle for "Bible was wrong".

Notice how every piece ends with "there was an evening and there was a morning"

Yes - and is summarized this way "SIX DAYS YOU shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

Or how every piece starts with "GOD SAID" and "let there be"
or how every piece has in the midde "God saw it was good"

Are you making my point or yours?

Do think that "legal code" in Ex 20:11 is "symbolism" -- does God say "Six days you shall labor...for in six days the easter bunny built a tower that reached to heaven"??? Is legal code in Ex 20 filled with symbols and allegory not meant to be taken seriously as stated?

Why avoid this hard-wired linkage from Ex 20:11 to Gen 2:2-3??

Now I'm not saying genesis is only a mere poem or that its wrong.

pretty hard to tell that so far.

And impossible to wipe it out as mere poetry given that God summarized it this way "SIX DAYS YOU shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

If you go outside and get a tan.....that's evolution.

No it isn't -- Evolution argues for bacteria turning into Eukaryote Amoeba - it does not argue that pigmentation already present in your skin - that already responds to sunlight - will "respond to sunlight when sunlight hits it -- as already designed" - that would be stasis - features already present in the organism simply functioning as designed - no new capability added via the genome.

But if we get all super technical all animal embryos start looking the same,

Ernst Haekles confirmed fraud and hoax around his bogus claim that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" got him put on trial by his own atheist evolutionist professors for flat out lying - you seem to be giving that idea 'another spin' -- why??

The material I need to create you cost about 11 bucks and I can find in a walmart.

And yet you cannot create even one single-celled prokaryote or one single-celled eukaryote!! Not one.

Obviously I am not God to know how to put it all together.

Blind faith evolutionism says "a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a sufficiently large and talented pile of dirt - and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so stories easy enough to tell" -- I prefer Christianity to that doctrine on origins.

The bible may say God made you from dust or dirt. What is dust or dirt?

May say???

Is it a key tactic to pretend to be so confused that one does not know the simplest phrase in the text???

We don't know what happened with the dirt, if he baked it or boiled it, or if he changed the dust to cells, then ameba, to a rat, ...

Whoever argues that such nonsense is in the text of Genesis 2 is "telling a story" hoping to create confusion where there is none.

"7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground"

Direct and simple. No messing around with Amoeba and Rat. Much as the all-is-confusion story line would have us "believe".

You can form a car from a mountain. But you go through getting doors, chairs, even qualifying as tiny house before it finally is a car.

My vote is that it is very clear and obvious and that even the atheists professors of Hebrew and OT studies see the blatantly obvious point -- not just Bible believing Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

My vote is genesis is way over your head, Just like when God gave Job the speech.

My prediction is that you continue to avoid this clear simple Bible detail - so obvious even to atheist professors of Hebrew Language and OT studies - because you know that to admit to the obvious would be to reject the RCC doctrine on origins taught in all of their universities "as fact".

In the Bible God says we literally have a 7 day week - look at His own summary of the Genesis 1:2-2:4 "Account" -- historic "account"

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.

Irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

The spirit of concession to paganism opened the way for a still further disregard of Heaven's authority. Satan, working through unconsecrated leaders of the church, tampered with the fourth commandment also, and essayed to set aside the ancient Sabbath, the day which God had blessed and sanctified (Genesis 2:2, 3), and in its stead to exalt the festival observed by the heathen as “the venerable day of the sun.” This change was not at first attempted openly. In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. -- Ellen G White Great Controversy Page 52


Seventh day Adventist say Catholics changed the day worship to SUNDAY

Sounds like a good topic.

Go ahead and start a thread on it - and I will participate.

Better yet - I will start that thread for you -- and you can make your case there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is your thread for making your case on the change of the Bible Sabbath to Sunday -

But given all of your own Catholic documents available on that subject - it is a tough case for you to make.

#1 BobRyan, A moment ago

 

[BobRyan]

You misrepresented the Catholic position.

Might as well add another vote option, Seventh day Adventist are correct - worshipping Satan and hating Jesus.


Catholics are given liberty on genesis account.

So what the Bible says is not so important to Catholics on the subject of marriage, the 7 day creation week, the fact that the Bible is not-myth... not nearly as important as the RCC itself promoting evolution?

But in the end - isn't that just what Atheists say?

 

[utilyan]

So what the Bible says is not so important to Catholics on the subject of marriage, the 7 day creation week, the fact that the Bible is not-myth... not nearly as important as the RCC itself promoting evolution?

But in the end - isn't that just what Atheists say?

Bob are you married or know any SDA members who are married?

Do you guys use Rings? Pagan symbols of marriage?

Can you show me in the bible how one gets married?

Maybe you adhere to some Secular EVOLUTION tradition of Do you so-and-so take so-and-so to be your wife?

I am married to every woman in the SDA church, Can you provide biblical evidence against my claim?

 

[BobRyan]

utilyan said: ↑
You misrepresented the Catholic position.
Might as well add another vote option, Seventh day Adventist are correct - worshipping Satan and hating Jesus.
Catholics are given liberty on genesis account.

Atheists have a great deal of "liberty" in not believing the Bible and the book of Genesis.

So what the Bible says is not so important to Catholics on the subject of marriage, the 7 day creation week, the fact that the Bible is not-myth... not nearly as important as the RCC itself promoting evolution?

But in the end - isn't that just what Atheists say?

Bob are you married or know any SDA members who are married?
Do you guys use Rings? Pagan symbols of marriage?

Is "changing the topic" the answer to every point that comes up?

 

[utilyan]

Atheists have a great deal of "liberty" in not believing the Bible and the book of Genesis.





Is "changing the topic" the answer to every point that comes up?

I think its on point since you insist biblical teaching alone is the only acceptable and accuse Catholics of not using the bible concerning marriage.

YOU SAID : "So what the Bible says is not so important to Catholics on the subject of marriage"

I can't answer back to this? I have to just accept what you say as the truth?


Your game is you can assault us on multiple topics but I'm not allowed a defense.

 

[BobRyan]

Atheists have a great deal of "liberty" in not believing the Bible and the book of Genesis.

I think its on point since you insist biblical teaching alone is the only acceptable

I do support "believe the Bible" over "Atheist liberty to deny as much of it as they wish" -- and I am sure you can see why I would make that choice. I think that on certain topics you yourself might even be a "virgin-birthist" even when atheists object to such an idea... But then you join them in their rejection of the Bible when it comes to creation, marriage, the Sabbath, the fall of man? How much of their story do you go along with - over the Bible?

YOU SAID : "So what the Bible says is not so important to Catholics on the subject of marriage"

I can't answer back to this? I have to just accept what you say as the truth?

You can answer it - were you about to say that God created man sinless from the dust of the ground - two sinless individuals - Adam and Eve and they were married in Eden - on day 6 of creation week... having no father and no earthly mother - but rather created directly by God and given the marriage institution in that direct conversation with God?

If so... then claiming to be "married to every SDA woman" is an odd way to make that statement. (Of course - I am not Catholic so I don't know about all the ways you may be encoding your terms)

 

[BobRyan]

Atheists have a view of Genesis that opens the door to re-inventing man as an "ape" -- and reinventing the fall of man as a "myth" and reinventing marriage as whatever your culture wishes to make of it.

But it starts with re-inventing man as ape - not created sinless and upright by God on day 6 - but rather recasting all the origins doctrine in the Bible as mere "myth".

 

[utilyan]

Atheists have a view of Genesis that opens the door to re-inventing man as an "ape" -- and reinventing the fall of man as a "myth" and reinventing marriage as whatever your culture wishes to make of it.

But it starts with re-inventing man as ape - not created sinless and upright by God on day 6 - but rather recasting all the origins doctrine in the Bible as mere "myth".

"God cannot take the slave to heaven, who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God, or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and not holding so elevated a position as his master's brute beasts. But He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He lets him be as though he had not been." Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 193.

"But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." -Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864.
"Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864.

According to Ellen G White. A person who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, who knows nothing of God or the bible who hasn't been elevated to a position above a beast, is beast. In so much an animal that God's compassion on that person is to treat them like they never existed.


Now she believes as you that Man did not evolve. Same time she thinks Men are having babies with other animals.

So certainly some of us are apes.


I don't think you should overreact to a point of vilifying science. There are sincere athiests, seekers of truth.

There are thousands of religions with thousands of stories of creation.

If a man rejected ALL non-Christian religion's take on creation you would swear up and down he's using his noggin'. But then somethings wrong with him for not blindy accepting your understanding?

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

They call us apes......So what? You should nurture them on their quest to finally reveal the truth.

And then it will be pretty obvious we are not Apes.

I'm Glad you insist we Catholics are not apes.

 

[BobRyan]

"God cannot take the slave to heaven, who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God, or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and not holding so elevated a position as his master's brute beasts. But He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He lets him be as though he had not been." Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 193.

"But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." -Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864.
.

According to Ellen G White there is no such thing as evolution and man being "an ape".

According to Ellen White - all races of man are equal --

1. Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.

"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God." 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225

That is a statement from the 1800's that goes far beyond Catholic ape-man-evolution, southern Methodist, SBC at the time.

Mixing of animals results in various species of animals

Mixing of human races - result in "new races of man".

"Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864

There is nothing about mixing humans with animals in that statement.
Not amalgamation of "man with beast" but amalgamation in both groups -- men... and beasts.

The "mixing" of the beasts - yields new species of animals
the "mixing' of the human races together - race-with-race --results in new races of man - not the one race that came off Noah's ark or the one race as created by God in Eden in the real 7 day creation week "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" Ex 20:8-11

. A person who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, who knows nothing of God or the bible who hasn't been elevated to a position above a beast, is beast.

You may think that because all humans are essentially apes - they are all beasts but that is not how Ellen White describes man.


Then commenced the jubilee, when the land should rest. I saw the pious slave rise in triumph and victory and shake off the chains that bound him, while his wicked master was in confusion and knew not what to do; for the wicked could not understand the words of the voice of God. Soon appeared the great white cloud. It looked more lovely than ever before. On it sat the Son of man. … {EW 35.1}

Now she believes as you that Man did not evolve. Same time she thinks Men are having babies with other animals

Here "again" you merely "quote you"..

Even when you quote Ellen White - you leave so much out (as we saw with page 35.1) that you force the text to speak its "opposite".



From: EW 275-276

All heaven beholds with indignation human beings, the workmanship of God, reduced by their fellow men to the lowest depths of degradation and placed on a level with the brute creation. Professed followers of that dear Saviour whose compassion was ever moved at the sight of human woe, heartily engage in this enormous and grievous sin, and deal in slaves and souls of men. Human agony is carried from place to place and bought and sold. Angels have recorded it all; it is written in the book. The tears of the pious bondmen and bondwomen, of fathers, mothers, and children, brothers and sisters, are all bottled up in heaven. God will restrain His anger but little longer. His wrath burns against this nation and especially against the religious bodies that have sanctioned this terrible traffic and have themselves engaged in it. Such injustice, such oppression, such sufferings, are looked upon with heartless indifference by many professed followers of the meek and lowly Jesus. And many of them can themselves inflict, with hateful satisfaction, all this indescribable agony; and yet they dare to worship God. It is solemn mockery; Satan exults over it and reproaches Jesus and His angels with such inconsistency, saying, with hellish triumph, “Such are Christ’s followers!” {EW 275.1}

These professed Christians read of the sufferings of the martyrs, and tears course down their cheeks. They wonder that men could ever become so hardened as to practice such cruelty toward their fellow men. Yet those who think and speak thus are at the same time holding human beings in slavery. And this is not all; they sever the ties of nature and cruelly oppress their fellow men. They can inflict most inhuman torture with the same relentless cruelty manifested by papists and heathen toward Christ’s followers. Said the angel, “It will be more tolerable for the heathen and for papists in the day of the execution of God’s judgment than for such men.” The cries of the oppressed have reached unto heaven, and angels stand amazed at the untold, agonizing sufferings which man, formed in the image of his Maker, causes his fellow man. Said the angel, “The names of the oppressors are written in blood, crossed with stripes, and flooded with agonizing, burning tears of suffering. God’s anger will not cease until He has caused this land of light to drink the dregs of the cup of His fury, until He has rewarded unto Babylon double. Reward her even as she rewarded you, double unto her double according to her works; in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double.” {EW 275.2}

I saw that the slave master will have to answer for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and the sins of the slave will be visited upon the master. God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master’s lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes. But He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the justice of God will be satisfied. {EW 276.1}

========================

In that example we have the pious slave rise up and go to heaven.

And those slaves not pious - do not suffer the fate of hell - though they do not go to heaven.

What is the pro-evolutionist men-are-apes Catholic response to this second case - the case where some of the slaves are found not to be the "pious slave" and so they do not go to heaven ?

It is to complain that they have this distinction of not going to hell but instead are spared hell - since they were in life kept at such a level of ignorance.

 

[BobRyan]

They call us apes......So what? You should nurture them on their quest to finally reveal the truth.

And then it will be pretty obvious we are not Apes.

I'm Glad you insist we Catholics are not apes.

If only I could get "you" to stop calling mankind apes (which is where you are "stuck" in blind-faith-evolutionism's religion)


Yet Blind faith evolutionism says “humans are apes”

http://australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes
Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’
“Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.”

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think you should overreact to a point of vilifying science. There are sincere athiests, seekers of truth.

the junk-science of blind-faith-evolutionism is certainly a hijacking of science -- but science itself is not at all evil or bad. I simply condemn the false religion of evolutionism in its attempt to hijack science.

As you point out - the atheists sincerely love it. But I am a Christian - so I oppose it.

 

[utilyan]

the junk-science of blind-faith-evolutionism is certainly a hijacking of science -- but science itself is not at all evil or bad. I simply condemn the false religion of evolutionism in its attempt to hijack science.

As you point out - the atheists sincerely love it. But I am a Christian - so I oppose it.

Not all atheist subscribe to evolution.

If evolution turns out to be proven true, this would not contradict scripture is the point I want to make.

 

[BobRyan]

Not all atheist subscribe to evolution.

Do you think some of them believe in the Bible version of Creation - a 7 day creation week "six days you shall labor..for in six days the LORD made..."???

If evolution turns out to be proven true, this would not contradict scripture .

Because the Bible has been "rewritten" and the text as written by the hand of God -
"SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD made" is not in the Bible any more?

========================

I think it is far more likely that this all depends on what religion you use as your "Source of truth" when it comes to the origins doctrine for mankind--

If the atheist source of truth - the religion of evolutionism is correct - then that would satisfy atheists.
IF the RCC is your source of truth then Catholic religion of evolutionism is correct - that would satisfy Catholics
If the Bible religion containing the origins doctrine for mankind is correct - that would satisfy Christians that are not Catholic