If Evolution

[6days]

We just have faulty exegesis of "was" in Gen 1:2 which should be translated "became".

Evolutionists also have suggestions for how God's Word should be interpreted differently. Why not just trust Jesus that humanity was there from a time near the foundations of the world and the beginning of creation? Why not trust the context Moses used for "one day", suggesting that there was nothing pre-existing. Why not trust that God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day? Why not trust the science which supports the truth of God's Word?

 

[The Barbarian]

How about if I call you patient?

I'm a very patient guy.

You seem to be dealing with ignorance well.

One learns to handle it, teaching.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists also have suggestions for how God's Word should be interpreted differently. Why not just trust Jesus that humanity was there from a time near the foundations of the world and the beginning of creation?

Because God explicitly says what was there at the beginning,and people weren't.

YE mantra:"It's literally true, except where we don't like what it says."

 

[marhig]

He forgave sins based on what? Are you suggesting that the cross was meaningless? Why couldn't Jesus skip the cross and tell people to just keep sacrificing animals?

Jesus was a living sacrifice, he sacrificed his whole life for God, he was without spot or blemish because he didn't sin. His natural death on the cross doesn't save anyone, he was murdered by wicked men, by the power of darkness, there is no darkness in God whatsoever.

Jesus was dead to his flesh, he denied his own will and and lived by the will of God completely, he was sent by God, and he came to bare witness to the truth and in doing so he saved those who believed on him through the gospel, by the word of God, and those who believe and have faith are saved from this world of sin and death through him, by the power of the Spirit, through faith by the grace of God. The natural blood of Christ can't save anyone, his blood that saves is his blood within, it's his life within us that saves us and he helps us to overcome, not his death on the cross. The true cross is the cross he bore just like he tells us to take up our cross and follow him. Jesus said that if we don't eat his flesh or drink his blood, then we have no life in us, he isn't speaking naturally.

How does the natural death of Jesus save you? I hear people say that God came and was crucified to save us, why? Why would God need to come in flesh and be crucified by wicked men to save us from his own wrath? What is the sense in that? God just wouldn't need to do that. And even worse still, some people think that Jesus has died on the cross and they are eternally saved even if they carry on wilfully sinning, that's just not the truth! We must live by the will of God once we know the truth, and those who truly worship God do so, and as they walk in the Spirit they worship God in Spirit and in truth, and they then bare witness to the truth themselves truly following Christ Jesus.

God wants our hearts changed, and he wants to see the life of his son in and through us, without the the Spirit we are dead to God as we have no life in us the life of Christ is made manifest in our hearts through the Spirit of truth and life. So God sent Jesus to bare witness to the truth to bring life and light to those in darkness, to show us how to live right before God and preach the truth. And we are saved through him. And once we listen to the truth and turn away from this world and start obey what Jesus teaches, then God will bless us with eternal life, which is the Holy Spirit in the heart and he will help us to overcome, and we are to endure to the end and keep our faith to have the hope of eternal salvation.

God knew what would happen to Jesus once he came into this world of sin, and he foretold it through the prophets, and Jesus was willing to bare it to preach the gospel of truth and live it out to save a many as possible. And he also had to bare whatever was set before him including the cross and bare it and overcome satan by not sinning and taking whatever satan did to him through wicked men and show love and mercy to all regardless of what he went through. And in doing so, he won satan on his own ground he overcame him and satan couldn't get him to sin in any way, even scourging and killing him couldn't get him to sin or turn against God. And he was our perfect example to follow, no matter what we go through in this lifetime, we are to hold on and keep our faith, Christ Jesus is like our life ring in the darkest of seas, and he will help us from going under if we keep our faith and live by the will of God.

Death doesn't save, life saves. We are saved by the life of Christ.

 

[marhig]

Evolutionists also have suggestions for how God's Word should be interpreted differently. Why not just trust Jesus that humanity was there from a time near the foundations of the world and the beginning of creation? Why not trust the context Moses used for "one day", suggesting that there was nothing pre-existing. Why not trust that God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day? Why not trust the science which supports the truth of God's Word?

A day in God's time isn't the same as a day in our time.

 

[6days]

Because God explicitly says what was there at the beginning,and people weren't.

Jesus said "Haven't you read the Scriptures?, They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

 

[6days]

...His natural death on the cross doesn't save anyone

There is no one, or not even any cult that says such a thing. (Not that I'm aware of).

he was murdered by wicked men, by the power of darkness, there is no darkness in God whatsoever.

Sin put Jesus on the cross.

Death doesn't save, life saves. We are saved by the life of Christ.

Thanks Marhig. I read your reply twice. But, it seems like you are trying to answer something different from what was asked. I agree, and I think all Christians agree that death does not save. However scripture does Talus that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.The question was "Why couldn't Jesus skip the cross and tell people to just keep sacrificing animals?"

 

[6days]

There is no one, or not even any cult that says such a thing. (Not that I'm aware of).

Sin put Jesus on the cross.Thanks Marhig. I read your reply twice. But, it seems like you are trying to answer something different from what was asked. I agree, and I think all Christians agree that death does not save. However scripture does Talus that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.The question was "Why couldn't Jesus skip the cross and tell people to just keep sacrificing animals?"

Tell us... not talus

 

[The Barbarian]

Rather, I've said that when God says something, we need to pay attention much more than what a fallible man would say. The Holy Spirit leads into ALL truth (that we'd apprehend). John 16:13

The issue is that a lot of people thinking that the Holy Spirit is leading them, are heading off in all sorts of different directions. So it appears that believing that one is led by the Holy Spirit isn't a very good indication that one is right.

I found one HS textbook on science from 1914 that somehow covered geology without any reference to age at all. But still nothing like you report. I'm puzzled.

 

[2003cobra]

How can the second creation story say "the day" if there is no second creation story?

You don't make sense.

George, I had hoped you would not deny what the text says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A day in God's time isn't the same as a day in our time.

Incorrect.

God experiences time at the same rate we do.

 

[2003cobra]

He did forgive sins before he was crucified, he was forgiving sins in his lifetime!

Yes, and He specifically stated that He had that authority:

Mark 2 When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk'? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— 11 "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home." 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

6day is under the mistaken impression that Jesus did not have that authority, and that is one reason that he denies what the two creation stories actually say.

He limits the power of Jesus despites the clear declaration of Jesus that He had that authority and proved so with miracles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most domesticated plants and animals seem to have derived from a pair of common, recent (<12000 years) ancestors.

I am thinking cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, chickens, pigeons, corn, wheat etc. And maybe hamsters too.

This all adds a little weight to the Genesis story.

The fact that there are so many ancient aquatic species like sharks, crocodiles, coelacanths lends weight to the fact that the Genesis account follows on a mass extinction of terrestrial animals, but the mass extinction did not affect aquatic animals that lived before the Genesis re-population of earth.

At the start of Genesis, earth is without form and void, in darkness, and covered with water. Not good for the survival of past land animals, fine for ancient aquatic animals to have survived.

God repopulated earth with only one species of humans, Adam and Eve - unlike before Genesis, when there seems to have been many species of hominids. The Bible only concerns itself with Homo sapiens, so why should it not pick up the story only when Homo Sapiens was created?

Are you familiar with Buckland's ideas of natural theology?

https://archive.org/details/geologyandminer08buckgoog

Your ideas somehow remind me of his book.

 

[The Barbarian]

Incorrect.

God experiences time at the same rate we do.

That's like saying you experience water the same way that fish in your aquarium do.

 

[CherubRam]

Come on Lon! All mainstream science knows that light travels through the vacuum of space, in any direction, at c. This is not a question of Global Warming where the jury might still be out.



Gravity does not affect the answer to this question since gravity is weak in most of the universe. Again, all mainstream science knows that large dense objects can bend light slightly, or that at a black hole, gravity can suck light into it. But most of space is a vacuum, and is unaffected by anything but minor gravity. Therefore c stands.

All that religious folks have to accept is that Genesis 1 is a recreation, and that the universe IS old. By translating the one word "was" to "became" in Gen 2 (a perfectly legal translation) we don't have to fight mainstream science, and go squirrelling around in the hedges and furrows of fringe science. Then cosmology and palaeontology is not a fight.


Yes!!!


It is only on fringe sites that there is speculation. No astronomer feels there is a smidgeon of speculation.


I agree totally with you there.


Mainstream science knows the answer. If the exploding star is 1 billion light years away, then it takes 1 billion light years to get here.



God does not lie. We just have faulty exegesis of "was" in Gen 1:2 which should be translated "became".

Even before the first day of creation, we had an earth, without form and void, water covering it, and dense vapour enshrouding it. Thus we have something before God spoke "let there be light" on Day 1.

Thus there was an earth before Day 1.

After the creation of heaven God came to a body of water without form. Another word for Earth is Tera-forma. God teraformed the Earth. God caused the sun to shine, the clouds were blocking the sunlight. The sun had already been created when God created the heavens.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's like saying you experience water the same way that fish in your aquarium do.

Water is still water, whether you're a fish or a human.

Obviously, a fish lives in water, and we in air, but both fish and humans can swim in water.

God experiences time like we do because He, like us, is in time. We're all swimming along the same stream.

 

[Lon]

Still no answer.

Still unwilling to say which translation you put in your shopping cart when the translation you normally use proved you wrong.

You can make up whatever your little head desires, Cobra. Again, just keep it to yourself.

 

[Lon]

Notice how I didn't include rodents bc there were tiny mammals back then. Everybody knows that. There were small birds too.
But there has never once been any mammal that wasn't an extinct rodent found with dinosaurs.

Woolly mammoths, sabre kitties, dire wolves and so on lived alongside humans. We know this because we find their bones together.
If dinosaurs lived with people and dogs and so on, why has there never once been a Dino fossil found with a human (or dog, elk, bear, and on and on)?

See, you are moving the goal post. This wasn't the first find of a dinosaur in a mammal or vice versa. Point? You asked for a broad finding and one is readily available. You, yourself, agreed.

 

[Lon]

Come on Lon! All mainstream science knows that light travels through the vacuum of space, in any direction, at c. This is not a question of Global Warming where the jury might still be out.

And? We are 'thinking' that all space is the same. We tend to 'extrapolate' and our science knowledge is based off that. For me, it is better for science in the long run NOT to posture over these matters. Religion is dogmatic and has to be. Science doesn't have to be because it is always retesting and NEEDS to be willing to rethink consensus. Consensus can be a death knell to further good science.

Gravity does not affect the answer to this question since gravity is weak in most of the universe. Again, all mainstream science knows that large dense objects can bend light slightly, or that at a black hole, gravity can suck light into it. But most of space is a vacuum, and is unaffected by anything but minor gravity. Therefore c stands.

Not when you admit factors can affect it. Again, we 'extrapolate' what we 'think.' Good 'theory' but such MUST be testable. If not? :nono: Science is theory, but untestable science is a best guess. I'd grant that I'd take Spocks 'best guess' over my own. In the video, gravity and lack of vacuum etc. are all factors.

All that religious folks have to accept is that Genesis 1 is a recreation, and that the universe IS old. By translating the one word "was" to "became" in Gen 2 (a perfectly legal translation) we don't have to fight mainstream science, and go squirrelling around in the hedges and furrows of fringe science. Then cosmology and palaeontology is not a fight.

:nono: No they don't. :think: They NEED to read and listen to what God says if two cross the same subject matter.

Yes!!!

:nono: If given to its physical limitation, it is our best guess but Colossians 1:17
IS God capable of doing anything? :think: Science is supposing the 'way' such is done. We SHOULD always see if God has said something about the subject matter.

It is only on fringe sites that there is speculation. No astronomer feels there is a smidgeon of speculation.

Again, they are 'supposed to!' Science IS about using whatever we have, but we haven't cured cancer yet. IF scientists just settled, they are no longer doing 'science' and they'd not have gone toward immunotherapy etc.

I agree totally with you there.

:up:

Mainstream science knows the answer. If the exploding star is 1 billion light years away, then it takes 1 billion light years to get here.

It is an extrapolation. As I said, we have NO way to actually test that theory. Models? Sure, but to actually check it out? We can't. Nobody has a billion years to wait.

God does not lie. We just have faulty exegesis of "was" in Gen 1:2 which should be translated "became".

Even before the first day of creation, we had an earth, without form and void, water covering it, and dense vapour enshrouding it. Thus we have something before God spoke "let there be light" on Day 1.

Thus there was an earth before Day 1.

:think: Are you a Hebrew scholar?

 

[Lon]

The issue is that a lot of people thinking that the Holy Spirit is leading them, are heading off in all sorts of different directions. So it appears that believing that one is led by the Holy Spirit isn't a very good indication that one is right.

Either their own spirit, or Him. If you are suggesting a lot of false Christians following their own thoughts instead of the Spirit? I think I'd agree but the Holy Spirit DOES guide His own. No question.

I found one HS textbook on science from 1914 that somehow covered geology without any reference to age at all. But still nothing like you report. I'm puzzled.

Thanks for looking. Again, it is just memory. I wonder if it was a science book that said it. I can't remember what kind of textbook it was. Would a history book have suggested such? :idunno: I remember the number and that it was talking about the age of the earth, well, but I don't remember the assigned reading period, whether it was science or something else. I'd think it would be bound to a science proposition, but maybe not? Sorry I'm not more help on this but I appreciate you looking. -Lon