I would see that Creationists undersatanding far better what Genesis means, and that we also understanding the facts concerning creation/ages/evolution better aalso!
I am confident that both Jesus and paul agrres on our understanding....
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Students at Wheaton start Young Earth Club, show Young Earth film to the dismay of faculty
- Thread starter Calminian
- Start date
I am confident that both Jesus and paul agrres on our understanding....
But it does deal with the origin of man, which is what Evolution supposes to address, and Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be reconciled with Evolution. They are mutually exclusive stories.
The Bible deals with Evolution in the same way it deals with all lies, and vain imaginations.
Throughout the scriptures, it is alweays presented to us as beijng historical facts, of the 6 days framework!
John D. Wright
Member
Matt 10:6
6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Matt 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Luke 6:38
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
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.
I'll take the bibles word for it.
6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Matt 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Luke 6:38
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
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.
I'll take the bibles word for it.
What is that supposed to mean? Don't you know that those who hold to theistic evolution are creationists? We haven't been talking about whether or not God created all things (He did!), but the process by which He did it.
I think those of us who are theistic evolutionists understand it much better than those who claim six, 24-hour day, creation. We have both the scripture and science on our side.
Based on what? You assume an interpretation of scripture and then assume that Jesus and Paul agree with you. Please note again that you are calling Jesus and Paul to your interpretation instead of yielding to their interpretation. Have you noticed that they did not claim six, 24-hour day, creation? Have you noticed that Paul frequently used "Adam" as an archetype, just like the writer of Genesis 5:1-2?
I have noticed that you have barely interacted with me in discussion of the relevant scriptural passages and have expressed NO interest in studying anything that challenges your viewpoints. If your interpretation was actually in alignment with Jesus and Paul, you should be able to at least contribute to the discussion instead of merely offering the condescension that "creationists" (meaning, people like you) understand everything better.
It can be reconciled with theistic evolution. Many of us are quite comfortable with that.
I was watching a spider last night. His web stretches across my whole from porch, and the porch light was bringing in his sustenance.
And maybe I'm a yokel, but I just can't fathom how an atheist can look at that beautifully emplaced web, and come to the conclusion that a random mutation of silk shooting out of an arachnid's rear end somehow evolved into the structure and behavior behind it that I was witnessing.
And maybe I'm a yokel, but I just can't fathom how an atheist can look at that beautifully emplaced web, and come to the conclusion that a random mutation of silk shooting out of an arachnid's rear end somehow evolved into the structure and behavior behind it that I was witnessing.
Bilions of years cannot fir into science, as too much against that as being true, and Most theistic evolutionists would not see Adam and Eve as being divine creations apart from evolutionary processes, no evidence for species change ever found, cannot account for death before sin entered in, and so basically its a system that wants to have assumed scientific facts in position over scriptures themselves !
Not at all. The earth and the heavens all point to being extremely old (in human terms).
You somehow think that living beings must be either "divine creations" or a result of evolutionary processes. A person who is a theistic evolutionist believes that the evolutionary process was divinely guided (that is, a divine creation). I do not know of a single theistic evolutionist who believes that anything evolved outside of God's providence.
There is a fair amount of evidence, if you look for it.
Sure we can.
False.
No species change evidence, none going on now or in the past, and Adam was created instantly, same way God spoke Universe into being!
Alright. Give an example.
A real species change!
You should read a book or two on the subject instead of expecting people on discussion boards to teach you.
An outstanding book that covers these issues is "Adam and the Genome."
So you would admit that there has been so far no real species change?
Of course not. I was admonishing both of you to actually investigate things for yourselves instead of expecting people to spoon feed you things. When you investigate things for yourselves you are less likely to simply reject them out of hand because you want to "win" an argument.
There is evidence for species change.
If you are interested, you can find it. If you are not interested, you don't need my help to reject it.