Created in the image of God

Yes, we do.

Yes, He did.

No, He IS omnipresent—not merely can be.

And now you see that God has no body. You say He has hands like we do, but all His work is described as made "without hands." What purpose do His bodily hands serve?

 

If there had been no Darwinian evolutioanary theory out there, would you have still seen Genesis as you do?

 

Yes. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence that the earth is extremely old.

 

Actually, the same evidence can be used to better support young earth!

 

Not really. But I'm not going to derail this thread with your nonsense.

 

So anyone who has an earened Phd, and holds to creationism is a dummy?

 

Those are your words, not mine.

Notice, I wrote "YOUR nonsense."

 

Concerning whether God had a physical body or not prior to God the Son taking on human flesh forever in Jesus:

I do not believe God existed as what we call "physical", prior to the creation. I don't believe there was a "physical".

There are times recorded in the O.T. when God revealed Himself to certain people as a human being. If you believe it was God the Father, it is called a "Theophany" (not sure the spelling) If God the Son, a "Christophany". Some believe, and I agree, that all such appearances were "Christophany", that being the role of the Son within the Godhead.

Examples:
God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden.

The 3 "men" that appeared to Abraham prior to the descruction of Sodom. We're 2 angels (who destroyed the city) and one God?

Some believe the high priest Melkezidec was a Christophany.

The "man" who wrestled with Jacob at the river bank and blessed him was God.

When the Hebrews were about to go into the promised land after Moses died, Joshua saw a "man" with His sword drawn who identified Himself as the Captain of the Lord's host. Joshua fell down and worshipped, and the "man" told him to remove his shoes because he stood on Holy ground, just like Moses and the burning bush. This was God.

So, it seems clear that God had revealed Himself to certain people at certain times, and He did so as a human being.

He didn't "have" a physical body as a permanent part of His existence until He took on flesh in the conception of Jesus.

 

Scripture, please.

Scripture, please.

No, we DON'T see he has no body. He Himself mentioned His face, hands, & back to Moses. So, by saying God has no body, you're saying He lied to Moses.

Now, if you'da said God has no PERMANENT, UNCHANGEABLE BODY, that'd be more like it.

 

I believe the OT appearances of God, except for the burning bush and His presence in Sinai were the pre-carnate Jesus. Remember, God The Father said no man could see His face & live, and there's nothing indicating that Abe or Josh didn't see the face of the Man who appeared to them.

I still believe God can take any form He chooses at any time.

 

I also do not think Moses actually saw God, but more the after glow of His presense...

 

So what you call those who are smartyer than the ones you rely on, and have just as many earned degrees, but are against theistic Evolution?

 

I do not want to derail this thread.

You have made a bunch of assertions here that I will answer in short order, and then I want you to stop trying to derail what is being discussed here.

Because of the way you have written this, I am going to rephrase your question a number of different ways to get at all of the assertions:

"Persons with whom I disagree." I don't feel a need to do any name-calling or assume inferior intelligence or motives of those persons. Only insecure people do that.

(1) Truth has no necessary connection to the intelligence of the person who advocates it. Unintelligent people can be right and smart people can be wrong.
(2) You have implied that "smarter" people are against theistic evolution. You have not provided any evidence that your assertion is true. I do not think that atheistic evolutionists or six-day creationists have a corner on intelligence.

On the theology side, I have carefully studied the relevant scriptural passages in the original languages, and have given them decades of consideration. I came to my conclusion that the Genesis narratives were not intended to be literal more than 25 years ago, and that was more than 20 years before I began to consider theist evolution to be a potentially viable solution to the claimed disparity between science and scripture.

On the science side, I have spoken to a number of biologists (all of them professing Christians), an astrophysicist (she is also a Sunday School teacher at my church), and a geologist (who taught at my Christian college) about these issues numerous times. I have gone into the field with the geologist and examined fossilized coral reefs and collected fossils. I have studied genetics and have an introductory knowledge of the human genome (I have also had genetic testing done on myself from two different companies -- double-blind testing). I have given more than 30 years of serious thought and investigation into these issues and sorted through the literature.

I am not just 'relying on' the opinions of others, but I have looked at broad evidence from many different sources -- a fair amount of it first-hand. I have also done a fair amount of reading, both for and against my views. I don't merely go to a website that advocates for "my side" and parrot what is written there to others. I first visited the Biologos site about a week ago when I stumbled across it looking for something else.

So your insinuation that I am simply relying on the assertions of persons who are less smarter than those you rely upon is laughably false.

A degree is a piece of paper and a certification. It does not give authority for that person to speak outside of the area of their particular knowledge (that happens a lot among Christians and atheists alike), nor does it necessarily mean that they are speaking truth.

Now stick with the topic of this thread or start a new one!

 

Bottom line is that your final authority on this issue would be science, while mine would be the scriptures themselves....

 

No, the bottom line is that you can't actually discuss this issue with any understanding and you resort to this false accusation because you also don't have the moral character to represent the views of someone you disagree with fairly. Scripture, as I have pointed out many times before, is my prime authority. You are explicitly lying about me.

 

You are re interpreting the scripture based upon what you see as scientif facts are, while i see them as being far from being true!

 

God appeared to Moses as burning bush, pillar of smoke or pillar of fire and allowing Moses to look at Him from behind when He passed by. This was unlike the appearances mentioned above (Chrisophanies) in that He didn't withhold His Glory. I dont think He took on the appearance of a human in this incident. When I read the passage, especially God covering Mose's view of Himself, cleft of the rock and all, I imagine Him as not human at all. You said the "after glow" of His presence (glory?)

I can only imagine that it was unlike anything that anyone has ever seen...ever this side of heaven...perhaps with the exception of Paul....perhaps.

 

I see God as giving to Moses a glimsp of His glory, but not his actual full on appearance there!

 

Friends, once again, I'm going by what GOD ACTUALLY SAID. He mentioned His face, hand, & back, so I MUST believe that, for that occasion, God had those body parts. There's no suggestion in God's words that these parts were anything but actual.

 

Except that NONE ever have seen God the Father before, and Jesus represents himn to us as the Son!