Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[Angrboda]

You say so and it must be true right apo?

Until you've seriously considered it I shall regard your opinion as uninformed.

Nobody in their right mind gives a rat's ass what you do or do not consider an informed opinion.

That and the right answer to the trivia question of the day will get you 10 cents off at Starbucks.

[Drich]

I've done two or three different threads on this already. My theory incorporates/assimilates evolution into the creation account. To where it becomes a non issue.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.ht...=Evolution

Drat, your link doesn't work for me.

I wonder what you think of the idea that the natural world as we find it is the best revelation of God's creation, so that whatever we can find out through science is part of the revelation?

There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:

Quote:
Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man. I also point out that outside of details of creation itself everything mentioned, takes place in the Garden. Basically between the four rivers that define it, God created a picture of the world that would be consistent with the evolutionary progress of man at the time of the fall.

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul. That would leave room for whole complete fossil record that could not biblically be reconciled. It also explains the city Cain moved to and the wives and husbands the children of Adam and Eve took for themselves. (They intermingled with monkey man/woman and pass their gift onto their children.)

Now I know the goto verse to disprove this is in Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short Mortal life)

At the fall Adam's eternal existence with God died as promised in Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.
Genesis 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

At this point Adam's immortality ended and his clock started on his 930 years. These were all of the days He spent on THIS Earth. (not the Garden/Presents of God/Heaven)


How do we know they were immortal in the Garden with God? because of Genesis 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

Amongest those trees was the tree of life. What did the tree of life do?

Genesis 3:22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

Something very important to note this is NOT "Gap theory" or Creation theory as made popular in the 17 century. Even though the empty term Gap Creation theory can apply, as far as I know this is something very new.

(This is creation gap theory:What is the "Gap Theory?" • ChristianAnswers.Net
In short between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a whole nother version of creation story. The problem here is there is added or filler material between the two accounts. )

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account.

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

What do you think? I would like to refine and clean up this account of origins and start circulating it. Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point. This takes the account of "origins" out of the atheist arsenal for a legitmate reason they do not believe in God. While on the Atheist website because they saw the logic of this explanation many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

If you like to see the actual discourse The website is atheist forums dot org. This place is not for the faint of heart there are little to no rules about what is said or seen there. It is under the religion/Christian category under drich "evolution."

---

I've done two or three different threads on this already. My theory incorporates/assimilates evolution into the creation account. To where it becomes a non issue.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.ht...=Evolution

No, they don't- and no it isn't. You've failed at science, then and now. This literalism of yours, btw, just one of those "minor" differences that Frodo et al don't like to talk about while they devalue said differences. The minor difference being that he concludes that your christianity is unreconcilable with reality - whereas his is..apparently..not.



So what say you Drich? Should I take Frodos word for your faith's status?

You can if you want.

[Minimalist]

Wow, Drippy.

[Angrboda]

So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

[fr0d0]

Nobody in their right mind gives a rat's ass what you do or do not consider an informed opinion.

I quoted my source for you to go check apoplexia. I also explained clearly how your point was wrong.

You are apparently to be believed on your opinion alone. Why should a rats ass suffice for that?

[Whateverist]

There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:

Quote:

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul.

Okay, sorry. I do sort of remember this but I do still think you are being way too literal in trying to fit a narrative to the particulars of the story.

[Angrboda]

You are apparently to be believed on your opinion alone.

Well, yes, actually. And when you understand why that is, you be sure to drop me a postcard.

[Whateverist]

Honestly, I've never given it a lot of thought.

But, I do believe that a "Dualism", is possible. At least in a sense that evolution of life in general progressed to a certain level. Whereas creationism was separate in terms of a "spiritual" evolution in man. There was some writing on this that I read years ago. I don't remember. I'll have to consult my secretary/memory-bank (ie wife) and get back to ya. lol

But, I don't really like separating the two (evolution & creationism). God created/allowed both! I think that is where religious got off track along the way. There is no reason to divide them imo.

Sounds like Fr0d0 has the most expertise with this but I believe the idea is that we needn't use the bible to qualify what we find through science. If you believe in a creator then the creation itself, what we study best with science, stands on its own merits as revelation of what has been created. I see no reason to think that anything the bible says must be read in a way which would allow the study of creation through science to pose any difficulty. Easy for me to say, of course, as I am not trying to hold on to a faith in God while pushing the limits of the bible as allegory.

[fr0d0]

You are apparently to be believed on your opinion alone.

Well, yes, actually. And when you understand why that is, you be sure to drop me a postcard.

here you go:

[Angrboda]