Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus was speaking to them in a parable...

Yes. The One Who was the very image of the Father explained things using non-historical, non-literal stories. It is something that God does. Therefore, it should not be surprising to see it in other parts of scripture.

...and genesis is neither myth/metaphor, nor a parable!

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. What is your evidence that the creation stories of 1-3 are NOT myth (in the finest technical sense of the word)? I have given you some scriptural evidence in previous posts. You have cited Jesus and Paul improperly, and I have explained who they were really talking about.

And so you are back to stating that God was not able to show to any Christian what was intend and meant to us to learn from Genesis until the Evolutionists and their "scientific facts" became history?

I have never said anything of the sort (much less going “back to” it) and I think you know that. If you seriously think that is my position, then you haven’t been reading my posts carefully.

You brought up Luther, Calvin and Augustine as authorities on doctrine, especially regarding their views on Genesis 1-3, and I pointed out that they were not infallible and pointed out that we agree on believer's baptism by immersion, while the three of them would strongly disagree with us.

I happen to think that believer’s baptism is a much more important doctrine than a difference of interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Why couldn’t God change the minds of Augustine, Luther and Calvin? Because they were set in their ways of thinking and were dealing with some even more important issues.

We don’t properly do biblical interpretation by simply going with the majority view of the people around us, but by careful study, prayer, and meditation on scripture within the bounds of a community. Sometimes, we come across evidence in scripture that is unpopular in our community. If we are to be faithful to God, we have to be advocates for the new position until we are convinced we are wrong or the community changes its mind, realizing that you are right.

The Days of creation were literal days, Genesis1:24-25 explains that there was no evolution used, chapter 2 shows us Mankind was a special creation of God, 1 Adam and 1 Eve..

You’ve fallen into simply stating your position again. What is your evidence for such a position? What do we do with all the other evidence and truth that God has given us? Reject God’s truth? Nope. Not me.

Your biggest mistake is to filter the scriptures thru lens of evolutionary science, and not the other way around!

I never made that mistake. You are quite simply, incorrect. Here's the real story:

I came to my understanding of the myth nature of Genesis 1-3 through the study of the texts themselves while I was taking a Hebrew class in seminary. The texts CLEARLY (at least to me) show that they are not to be taken literally or historically, but rather to explain why humankind and the rest of the universe was created, and how we fit into it. I worked through the issues starting in 1992 and settled into that understanding in 1994. Since that time I have observed lots of evidence of an ancient earth, including massive fossilized coral reefs while traveling throughout Texas and New Mexico and discoveries in astronomy. I have been agnostic regarding human evolution through that entire period until I starting following the research on the human genome and genetic science, a subject that has interested me since high school in the 1980s. Due to my father’s passing in 2005, he had compiled an enormous amount of information on his family’s history, but he could not connect us to any of the Scottish clans, as was the story. He died with that unresolved. My brother (a scientist), heard about genetic testing on the Y-chromosome that had become commercially available, so he decided to do it since he had an invitation to speak at a major conference in Scotland the next year and he wanted some leads on what parts of Scotland to follow up our genealogy in local records. When the results came back, we discovered that our family is actually from the southwest coast of Ireland, not Scotland at all. That put a whole new spin on our genealogy. A few years ago, I started experiencing worsening symptoms of health troubles I had experiencing since around 1997. Through a long series of painful events, I discovered that I had a rare disease – Cushing’s Disease – caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland. And I was in such bad shape because of heart palpitations and breathing difficulties, I was a poor candidate for surgery. However, I wasn’t going to live more than a few more years at most without surgery, so I went through the surgery and the tumor was removed.

Things had gotten so bad because Cushing’s Disease is extremely difficult to diagnose, and it is almost always misdiagnosed. I actually diagnosed myself using Google one night, and then had to get medical professionals to run the months of tests to verify the diagnosis. That is extremely common in the Cushing’s community. People literally die because the issue is diagnosed too late. As one of the ways to make the world a better place, a lot of us Cushing’s survivors do the health genetic testing through 23andMe and let the company know that we have had Cushing’s Disease. We hope that they will isolate some genetic markers that can easily be tested in the near future to aid doctors when they are trying to diagnose a patient.

In the process of doing all of that and sorting through my human genome, I realized that the theory of theistic human evolution fits the evidence we have better than any other perspective.

So your foolish assertion that I started with human evolution and bring that to the scriptures is completely false. It was the other way around. From 1994-2016 (22 years), I was agnostic on the issue, with my preference that Adam and Eve were special creations of God that just happened to be similar to other hominids, and that we were all descended from one mother and father. However, the Bible doesn’t demand that and other solid evidence we have points to a community of about 10,000 hominids as the foundational group for humankind.

If you want to continue the discussion, I am happy to do it. But if you simply want to assert your viewpoints over and over without any documentation, I don’t really have time for that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. The One Who was the very image of the Father explained things using non-historical, non-literal stories. It is something that God does. Therefore, it should not be surprising to see it in other parts of scripture.


Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. What is your evidence that the creation stories of 1-3 are NOT myth (in the finest technical sense of the word)? I have given you some scriptural evidence in previous posts. You have cited Jesus and Paul improperly, and I have explained who they were really talking about.


I have never said anything of the sort (much less going “back to” it) and I think you know that. If you seriously think that is my position, then you haven’t been reading my posts carefully.

You brought up Luther, Calvin and Augustine as authorities on doctrine, especially regarding their views on Genesis 1-3, and I pointed out that they were not infallible and pointed out that we agree on believer's baptism by immersion, while the three of them would strongly disagree with us.

I happen to think that believer’s baptism is a much more important doctrine than a difference of interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Why couldn’t God change the minds of Augustine, Luther and Calvin? Because they were set in their ways of thinking and were dealing with some even more important issues.

We don’t properly do biblical interpretation by simply going with the majority view of the people around us, but by careful study, prayer, and meditation on scripture within the bounds of a community. Sometimes, we come across evidence in scripture that is unpopular in our community. If we are to be faithful to God, we have to be advocates for the new position until we are convinced we are wrong or the community changes its mind, realizing that you are right.


You’ve fallen into simply stating your position again. What is your evidence for such a position? What do we do with all the other evidence and truth that God has given us? Reject God’s truth? Nope. Not me.


I never made that mistake. You are quite simply, incorrect. Here's the real story:

I came to my understanding of the myth nature of Genesis 1-3 through the study of the texts themselves while I was taking a Hebrew class in seminary. The texts CLEARLY (at least to me) show that they are not to be taken literally or historically, but rather to explain why humankind and the rest of the universe was created, and how we fit into it. I worked through the issues starting in 1992 and settled into that understanding in 1994. Since that time I have observed lots of evidence of an ancient earth, including massive fossilized coral reefs while traveling throughout Texas and New Mexico and discoveries in astronomy. I have been agnostic regarding human evolution through that entire period until I starting following the research on the human genome and genetic science, a subject that has interested me since high school in the 1980s. Due to my father’s passing in 2005, he had compiled an enormous amount of information on his family’s history, but he could not connect us to any of the Scottish clans, as was the story. He died with that unresolved. My brother (a scientist), heard about genetic testing on the Y-chromosome that had become commercially available, so he decided to do it since he had an invitation to speak at a major conference in Scotland the next year and he wanted some leads on what parts of Scotland to follow up our genealogy in local records. When the results came back, we discovered that our family is actually from the southwest coast of Ireland, not Scotland at all. That put a whole new spin on our genealogy. A few years ago, I started experiencing worsening symptoms of health troubles I had experiencing since around 1997. Through a long series of painful events, I discovered that I had a rare disease – Cushing’s Disease – caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland. And I was in such bad shape because of heart palpitations and breathing difficulties, I was a poor candidate for surgery. However, I wasn’t going to live more than a few more years at most without surgery, so I went through the surgery and the tumor was removed.

Things had gotten so bad because Cushing’s Disease is extremely difficult to diagnose, and it is almost always misdiagnosed. I actually diagnosed myself using Google one night, and then had to get medical professionals to run the months of tests to verify the diagnosis. That is extremely common in the Cushing’s community. People literally die because the issue is diagnosed too late. As one of the ways to make the world a better place, a lot of us Cushing’s survivors do the health genetic testing through 23andMe and let the company know that we have had Cushing’s Disease. We hope that they will isolate some genetic markers that can easily be tested in the near future to aid doctors when they are trying to diagnose a patient.

In the process of doing all of that and sorting through my human genome, I realized that the theory of theistic human evolution fits the evidence we have better than any other perspective.

So your foolish assertion that I started with human evolution and bring that to the scriptures is completely false. It was the other way around. From 1994-2016 (22 years), I was agnostic on the issue, with my preference that Adam and Eve were special creations of God that just happened to be similar to other hominids, and that we were all descended from one mother and father. However, the Bible doesn’t demand that and other solid evidence we have points to a community of about 10,000 hominids as the foundational group for humankind.

If you want to continue the discussion, I am happy to do it. But if you simply want to assert your viewpoints over and over without any documentation, I don’t really have time for that.

Jesus Himself took Genesis, and Adam and Eve, as all being historical accounts of real individuals, and Paul saw it as an historical account of a real time event, so guess I will stick with inspired scripture!
And jesus and paul NEVER said they were parables or myths, did they?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus Himself took Genesis, and Adam and Eve, as all being historical accounts of real individuals...

How do you know this? Did He tell you privately, because He didn't say anything of the sort in scripture?

You pointed to a passage in Mark (which is also in Matthew) for proof, but it is clear from the context that he was not making the claims you are making. You have confused your opinion with the words of Jesus.

...and Paul saw it as an historical account of a real time event...

Where did he say this? You alluded to passages in 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts 17 (although you did not bother to give me citations), and I demonstrated that Paul said nothing of the sort. You simply bailed on your assertions and moved to something else, only to state them again as if you have authority that surpasses the scriptures.

...so guess I will stick with inspired scripture!

No, you are sticking with your own interpretations of scripture that apparently hold a higher authority than scripture itself. What you are sticking with is cultivated ignorance. While that may work in some circles of the church, it does not work for those of us who involved in evangelism and discipleship and have to answer legitimate questions about these issues to an audience that thinks critically and is well informed in scientific matters.

Throughout our conversation, you have barely interacted with scripture (only citing references when I goad you to do it), and you don't interact with the interpretations I present, to disagree or agree. It seems that you really aren't interested in what the scripture has to say, but rather, you want to tightly embrace so-called 6-day creationism. If your position was strong you would not have to avoid talking about scripture and proof-texts, but you could instead interact with me to work through the implications of some of these passages. But you don't and you won't.

Instead you ask questions that try to twist my words, or simply restate previously unsupported assertions as if repeating your unsupported assertions will make them true.

And jesus and paul NEVER said they were parables or myths, did they?

They didn't have to. Jesus' and Paul's audiences were smarter than that. They understood literature and the concept of myths in their predominantly oral culture.

Moreover, you are making an argument from silence, assuming that a first-century Middle Eastern and Southern European, Jewish and Roman. audience would have the same concerns and post-Enlightenment presuppositions that our 21st century Western culture carries. Paul clearly uses Adam and Eve in non-historic, non-literal, ways in his writings, so the evidence that does exist points away from your view.

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know this? Did He tell you privately, because He didn't say anything of the sort in scripture?

You pointed to a passage in Mark (which is also in Matthew) for proof, but it is clear from the context that he was not making the claims you are making. You have confused your opinion with the words of Jesus.


Where did he say this? You alluded to passages in 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts 17 (although you did not bother to give me citations), and I demonstrated that Paul said nothing of the sort. You simply bailed on your assertions and moved to something else, only to state them again as if you have authority that surpasses the scriptures.


No, you are sticking with your own interpretations of scripture that apparently hold a higher authority than scripture itself. What you are sticking with is cultivated ignorance. While that may work in some circles of the church, it does not work for those of us who involved in evangelism and discipleship and have to answer legitimate questions about these issues to an audience that thinks critically and is well informed in scientific matters.

Throughout our conversation, you have barely interacted with scripture (only citing references when I goad you to do it), and you don't interact with the interpretations I present, to disagree or agree. It seems that you really aren't interested in what the scripture has to say, but rather, you want to tightly embrace so-called 6-day creationism. If your position was strong you would not have to avoid talking about scripture and proof-texts, but you could instead interact with me to work through the implications of some of these passages. But you don't and you won't.

Instead you ask questions that try to twist my words, or simply restate previously unsupported assertions as if repeating your unsupported assertions will make them true.


They didn't have to. Jesus' and Paul's audiences were smarter than that. They understood literature and the concept of myths in their predominantly oral culture.

Moreover, you are making an argument from silence, assuming that a first-century Middle Eastern and Southern European, Jewish and Roman. audience would have the same concerns and post-Enlightenment presuppositions that our 21st century Western culture carries. Paul clearly uses Adam and Eve in non-historic, non-literal, ways in his writings, so the evidence that does exist points away from your view.

Paul did NOT use Adam in non historical/non literal terminology, for His very case to building the truth of biblical justification upon rest upon the historical truth that there was a real fall, and Adam as a real historical father of the entire human race, just as Eve was for mother of mankind also. Jesus knew that God had made Adam and Eve, as based marriage relationship upon them as ordained by God, was he wrong?
And you do know that there is really no scientific evidence to support evolutionary process on earth, as Darwin espoused it, and that holding to the historical/literal view of genesis was considered to be pretty much the norm until Evolution theory reared its ugly head?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Paul did NOT use Adam in non historical/non literal terminology…

Paul expressly used Adam in a non-literal, non-historical way (and that’s even if you are convinced Adam was a literal and historical person who was created on the sixth day).

We’ve already covered this, but you apparently rejected it (if you even read it).

Here’s one undeniable verse where Paul does it:

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

Obviously, Paul is making a reference to Jesus as the last Adam.

Now, was Jesus’ middle name “Adam”? Of course not.

Paul is using “Adam” to mean the representative (archetypal) man. So unless you believe that Jesus was somehow also named “Adam,” you have the use of Adam as an archetype.

So now you have to admit that Paul did use “Adam” in a non-historical/non-literal way or else forgo any semblance of credibility or fidelity to scripture.

That is just one example. I could show you more, but I doubt you are interested.

…for His very case to building the truth of biblical justification upon rest upon the historical truth that there was a real fall and Adam as a real historical father of the entire human race…

Since we both believe there was a real, historical fall that happened in the past and continues to be repeated everyday in the sin of humankind, justification does not depend upon Adam being a “real historical father of the entire human race.”

Of course, we should know that already. Justification depends upon something that the Father, Son and the Spirit have done, not on Paul’s explanation of it. You are confusing Paul’s explanation that uses the myths of Genesis with the actions of God.

…just as Eve was for mother of mankind also.

Have you ever noticed that Paul doesn’t use Eve as an example to discuss justification? That is a huge signal that Paul is using Adam as an archetype. Paul does use Eve as an archetype of one who falls into deception, but he does not major on that point.

Jesus knew that God had made Adam and Eve, as based marriage relationship upon them as ordained by God, was he wrong?

No, Jesus wasn't wrong is what He said, but you are wrong in what you think He said.

I’m assuming you mean to make the claim (again) that Jesus believed Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals who were direct creations of God, even though you don’t have a bit of scriptural evidence for it.

And as I have pointed out before, Jesus is simply referencing Genesis 1-2 to explain the purpose for men and women in marriage. That’s one of the many points of the Genesis 1-2 passages. Unless you demand that every character that Jesus references is literally and historically real, then you have nothing to back up your claim except opinion.

And you do know that there is really no scientific evidence to support evolutionary process on earth, as Darwin espoused it…

Darwin’s thinking has been largely replaced with better thinking on the subject, as well as evidence. Please understand that I have – not once – mentioned Darwin, nor asked you to believe Darwin’s specific theories. I have been discussing the evidence in the human genome.

…and that holding to the historical/literal view of genesis was considered to be pretty much the norm until Evolution theory reared its ugly head?

Let me point out what is wrong with your unstated assumption by giving you a similar argument that is made to me quite a bit by people from other Christian denominations:

The norm in Christendom held to the view that infants obtained the grace of God and were brought into right relationship with God through baptism until those horrible Anabaptists and Baptists reared their modern doctrine of believer’s baptism by immersion. Therefore, we can know that believer’s baptism by immersion is a serious error.​

The argument above is based on the false premise that the historical, majority view has to be correct. You obviously believe that is false, unless you really are not a Baptist.

As I’ve pointed about before, I came to a non-historical, non-literal view through study of the scriptures. Only much later did I decide that theistic evolution was the process by which human beings were created.

 

[Aaron]

Jesus said He does the works of His Father, and says we can believe Him because of those works. If gradual evolution over eons of time is the work of His Father, in which of Jesus' works is that manifest?

 

[Aaron]

Back to the OP . . . are they attempting to say the all the species branch from a single female, or that all the species come from a single female of that species? That's not wholly clear to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

Paul expressly used Adam in a non-literal, non-historical way (and that’s even if you are convinced Adam was a literal and historical person who was created on the sixth day).

We’ve already covered this, but you apparently rejected it (if you even read it).

Here’s one undeniable verse where Paul does it:

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

Obviously, Paul is making a reference to Jesus as the last Adam.

Now, was Jesus’ middle name “Adam”? Of course not.

Paul is using “Adam” to mean the representative (archetypal) man. So unless you believe that Jesus was somehow also named “Adam,” you have the use of Adam as an archetype.

So now you have to admit that Paul did use “Adam” in a non-historical/non-literal way or else forgo any semblance of credibility or fidelity to scripture.

That is just one example. I could show you more, but I doubt you are interested.


Since we both believe there was a real, historical fall that happened in the past and continues to be repeated everyday in the sin of humankind, justification does not depend upon Adam being a “real historical father of the entire human race.”

Of course, we should know that already. Justification depends upon something that the Father, Son and the Spirit have done, not on Paul’s explanation of it. You are confusing Paul’s explanation that uses the myths of Genesis with the actions of God.


Have you ever noticed that Paul doesn’t use Eve as an example to discuss justification? That is a huge signal that Paul is using Adam as an archetype. Paul does use Eve as an archetype of one who falls into deception, but he does not major on that point.


No, Jesus wasn't wrong is what He said, but you are wrong in what you think He said.

I’m assuming you mean to make the claim (again) that Jesus believed Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals who were direct creations of God, even though you don’t have a bit of scriptural evidence for it.

And as I have pointed out before, Jesus is simply referencing Genesis 1-2 to explain the purpose for men and women in marriage. That’s one of the many points of the Genesis 1-2 passages. Unless you demand that every character that Jesus references is literally and historically real, then you have nothing to back up your claim except opinion.


Darwin’s thinking has been largely replaced with better thinking on the subject, as well as evidence. Please understand that I have – not once – mentioned Darwin, nor asked you to believe Darwin’s specific theories. I have been discussing the evidence in the human genome.


Let me point out what is wrong with your unstated assumption by giving you a similar argument that is made to me quite a bit by people from other Christian denominations:

The norm in Christendom held to the view that infants obtained the grace of God and were brought into right relationship with God through baptism until those horrible Anabaptists and Baptists reared their modern doctrine of believer’s baptism by immersion. Therefore, we can know that believer’s baptism by immersion is a serious error.​

The argument above is based on the false premise that the historical, majority view has to be correct. You obviously believe that is false, unless you really are not a Baptist.

As I’ve pointed about before, I came to a non-historical, non-literal view through study of the scriptures. Only much later did I decide that theistic evolution was the process by which human beings were created.

Paul indeed held to a single man called Adam, as He contrasted how THAT man failed and sinned, while the one called the second Adam did not!
And God created each after its own kind in genesis, how does evolution fir in there?

 

[Aaron]

Jesus said He does the works of His Father, and says we can believe Him because of those works. If gradual evolution over eons of time is the work of His Father, in which of Jesus' works is that manifest?

Kinda puts a damper on the 'we see what God did in evolution' lie.

 

[Yeshua1]

Kinda puts a damper on the 'we see what God did in evolution' lie.

Jesus stated that God created Adam and Eve, not a whole city at one time!

 

[Aaron]

Jesus stated that God created Adam and Eve, not a whole city at one time!

More than that . . . did Christ work miracles, or did He guide naturalistic processes? This is more a question for the one with the fat black man avatar.

 

[Yeshua1]

More than that . . . did Christ work miracles, or did He guide naturalistic processes? This is more a question for the one with the fat black man avatar.

God created all things after their own kinds, and God created one man and one woman, seems to be the fact that he instead wants to have the scriptures readjusted based upon assumed "scientific facts"

 

[Aaron]

God created all things after their own kinds, and God created one man and one woman, seems to be the fact that he instead wants to have the scriptures readjusted based upon assumed "scientific facts"

I get that. My point is, that if God so clearly guided evolution over eons of time, then why would Jesus make such a radical departure from God's ways and work miracles in a short time?

If Baptist Believer wants to remain consistent in his hermeneutic, then he must say the stories of Christ's miracles are non literal as well, and that His resurrection has yet to work itself out in a guided naturalistic way.

 

[Yeshua1]

I get that. My point is, that if God so clearly guided evolution over eons of time, then why would Jesus make such a radical departure from God's ways and work miracles in a short time?

If Baptist Believer wants to remain consistent in his hermeneutic, then he must say the stories of Christ's miracles are non literal as well, and that His resurrection has yet to work itself out in a guided naturalistic way.

Now I see your point, as Jesus was indeed doing same miracles and wonders among them as God did before in the scriptures, and those were all supernaturally acts of God, not caused by evolution or other causes!
And since God raised jesus supernaturally, that mkes the need for evolutionary process moot and void!

 

[Baptist Believer]

I’ve been busy over the last few days, but I see that Aaron has joined the conversation. But Aaron, I’m quite puzzled by your argument here, since you are MUCH smarter than this. I suspect I am walking into a rhetorical trap since you are posing such a foolish argument.

Jesus said He does the works of His Father, and says we can believe Him because of those works.

I wish you and Yeshua would actually cite a scripture reference when you make an assertion based on scripture, so I don’t have to guess your reference to adequately answer your assertion. However, it is pretty clear that you are referencing John 10, where Jewish leaders are threatening to stone Him because He is frustrating them with His works. Most recently that included opening the eyes of a man blind from birth, and specifically His teaching that He and the Father are one (John 10:30).

If gradual evolution over eons of time is the work of His Father, in which of Jesus' works is that manifest?

That is not the work that Jesus is referencing here. Jesus has consistently stated that He is working in tandem with the Father to do all of His works, because apart from His Father He can do nothing (John 5:19, 30). Jesus simply does what He sees the Father doing (John 5:19).

Kinda puts a damper on the 'we see what God did in evolution' lie.

No, not for anyone familiar with the scripture.

More than that . . . did Christ work miracles, or did He guide naturalistic processes?

That’s a false presupposition. You ask that question as if it has to be one of the other. Moreover, I have asserted that God must have been actively involved in evolution for there to be the changes that have been made, not simply leaving things to “naturalistic” processes.

My point is, that if God so clearly guided evolution over eons of time, then why would Jesus make such a radical departure from God's ways and work miracles in a short time?

It’s not a radical departure from God’s ways at all. Throughout the Old Testament we see God working immediately, as well as developing a people to introduce redemption into the world – both long and immediate works. If God worked through evolution and the world is extremely old (in human terms), then that is a very long process.

If Baptist Believer wants to remain consistent in his hermeneutic, then he must say the stories of Christ's miracles are non literal as well, and that His resurrection has yet to work itself out in a guided naturalistic way.

There’s another massively false presupposition. It is the most BASIC principle of biblical interpretation that we are to interpret scripture according to genre and purpose, among other things. For example, I interpret the following verses in very different ways, according to the genre of literature:

Genesis 3:14

The LORD God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;”​

Genesis 12:1-3

Now the LORD said to Abram,

“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”​

Psalms 17:8

Keep me as the apple of the eye;
Hide me in the shadow of Your wings​

Proverbs 17:8

A bribe is a charm in the sight of its owner;
Wherever he turns, he prospers.​

Ezekiel 1:15-21

Now as I looked at the living beings, behold, there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings, for each of the four of them. The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl, and all four of them had the same form, their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved. As for their rims they were lofty and awesome, and the rims of all four of them were full of eyes round about. Whenever the living beings moved, the wheels moved with them. And whenever the living beings rose from the earth, the wheels rose also. Wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go in that direction. And the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. Whenever those went, these went; and whenever those stood still, these stood still. And whenever those rose from the earth, the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.​

Matthew 5:43-47

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?​

Luke 15:11-13

And He said, “A man had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them. And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.​

Romans 5:6-11

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.​

Revelation 10:8-10

Then the voice which I heard from heaven, I heard again speaking with me, and saying, “Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the land.” So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he *said to me, “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey.” I took the little book out of the angel’s hand and ate it, and in my mouth it was sweet as honey; and when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter.​

Only a biblical illiterate would interpret all of these passages the same way. But for the record, I accept all of the biblical miracles without concern or reservation, including the resurrection. It is astounding to have to say it, but one can have a consistent hermeneutic WITHOUT interpreting all passages of scripture in exactly the same way.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Paul indeed held to a single man called Adam, as He contrasted how THAT man failed and sinned, while the one called the second Adam did not!

Unless you believe that the "second Adam" is not Jesus (or that Jesus was also named, "Adam," then you are using the name Adam in a non-literal, non-historical sense. You have made the point that you keep denying.

And God created each after its own kind in genesis, how does evolution fir in there?

Remember, I do not interpret that passage literally. I interpret it as giving an explanation of the meaning and purpose of creation, not as a description of the process. But even if we were to take it literally, the Hebrew description of "after its own kind" is not talking about species of animals, but only the broadest strokes of fish begetting fish, birds begetting birds, etc. If God is involved in the process, then God may directly intervene in the moments where one species turns into another.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Now I see your point, as Jesus was indeed doing same miracles and wonders among them as God did before in the scriptures...

No, not really. Did Jesus divide the waters of the Red Sea? Nope, different type of miracle. Did God heal the sight of a man born blind in the Old Testament? Nope, nothing like that was recorded, so that's a different miracle. Aaron's argument only works if you are ignorant of the scriptures and assume the Father and Jesus are extremely limited in how They act in the world.

...and those were all supernaturally acts of God, not caused by evolution or other causes!
And since God raised jesus supernaturally, that mkes the need for evolutionary process moot and void!

When you start with false premises, you finish with false conclusions.

 

[rsr]

Yet Jesus did, on a small and instantaneous scale, the same miracles exhibited by God's original and sustaining creation.

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal—is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see. ...
Every year God makes a little corn into much corn: the seed is sown and there is an increase, and men, according to the fashion of their age, say "It is Ceres, it is Adonis, it is the Corn King," or else "It is the Laws of Nature." The close-up, the translation, of this annual wonder is the feeding of the five thousand.12 Bread is not made there of nothing. Bread is not made of stones, as the Devil once suggested to our Lord in vain. A little bread is made into much bread. The Son will do nothing but what He sees the Father do.

C.S. Lewis, Miracles, as published in God in the Dock

 

[Aaron]

Yet Jesus did, on a small and instantaneous scale, the same miracles exhibited by God's original and sustaining creation.

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal—is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see. ...
Every year God makes a little corn into much corn: the seed is sown and there is an increase, and men, according to the fashion of their age, say "It is Ceres, it is Adonis, it is the Corn King," or else "It is the Laws of Nature." The close-up, the translation, of this annual wonder is the feeding of the five thousand.12 Bread is not made there of nothing. Bread is not made of stones, as the Devil once suggested to our Lord in vain. A little bread is made into much bread. The Son will do nothing but what He sees the Father do.

C.S. Lewis, Miracles, as published in God in the Dock

Except that Christ also saw the act of Creation. He saw that where something did not exist, the heavens and earth were spoken into existence. When did any man see the dead come to life? Virgins conceive? Men walking on water? Commanding the wind and the waves?

What we see the Father doing, we see by faith. We see that He took a rib from Adam and made a Woman. We see that He spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. We see, and we're told, that God accomplished Creation in six days.

What man has never seen is evolution, neither in nature nor by faith.

Christ doing in microcosm what He sees the Father doing? What kind of rot is that?

 

[Aaron]

That is not the work that Jesus is referencing here. Jesus has consistently stated that He is working in tandem with the Father to do all of His works, because apart from His Father He can do nothing (John 5:19, 30). Jesus simply does what He sees the Father doing (John 5:19).

And Jesus raised the dead and forgave sins, for God, it is said, quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Romans 4:17.
If God turned one species into another, as Evolution says, where did Christ ever do that? You'd think he'd a turned some into snakes and others into doves. Isn't that what we see the Father doing in Evolution? Jesus would just have taken the Lewisonian shortcut, and do instantaneously what it took God a long, long time to do.

But then wouldn't that be like the pagan stories? People are turned into animals and plants and vice versa all the time in Greek mythology.

Wow. Boiled down, and by your own hermeneutics, Evolution is just paganism.

No, not for anyone familiar with the scripture.

Oo! You really got me there.

That’s a false presupposition. You ask that question as if it has to be one of the other. Moreover, I have asserted that God must have been actively involved in evolution for there to be the changes that have been made, not simply leaving things to “naturalistic” processes.

Christ just conveniently left out the Darwinism of His Father. Check.