Scientifically Impossible

[trilobyte 0]

I posted this in another thread, but later thought it warrented a thread of its own.

 

SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

 

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.

Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.

For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.

 

Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist†while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist†despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?

If the answer is “miracles†then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?

Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact? The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Genesis 1-2

The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22

The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Genesis 6-8

Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Genesis 9:29

Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Exodus 4:3

The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Joshua 10:13

Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: Matthew 14:29

Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: John 2: 1-11

Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

REF: John 20,21[/i]

Perhaps it’s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead people can’t rise from the grave on day 3.

That would be the natural “scientific†interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.

 

The above questions make me think of the following question:

Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

 

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:

If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.

Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation may be easly lost.

[ikester7579 19]

It's like the thread I did on where evolution being the exact opposite of creation. When you choose to try and make theistic evolution work. You also have to choose what subject of each side you are willing to believe. Truth at this point no longer belongs to God, but the individual. And from that point forward the individual is in danger of falling from grace.

 

gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

[TempestTossed 0]

If I were to peer inside the heads of Christian evolutionists, then I am guessing that "impossible" isn't really the point. Anything is possible with God, right? The point is the evidence seen in God's creation, the evidence that indicates common descent. Theistic evolutionists would rather believe that the creation story is allegorical than believe that creation itself is an illusion.

[ikester7579 19]

If I were to peer inside the heads of Christian evolutionists, then I am guessing that "impossible" isn't really the point.  Anything is possible with God, right?  The point is the evidence seen in God's creation, the evidence that indicates common descent.  Theistic evolutionists would rather believe that the creation story is allegorical than believe that creation itself is an illusion.

14407[/snapback]

Creation becomes an illusion when evolution becomes an abosolute.

[TempestTossed 0]

Creation becomes an illusion when evolution becomes an abosolute.

14408[/snapback]

That is kinda like what I would figure--I would expect supernatural creation to seem like a delusion in light of modern science--and yet there are millions of people including prominent scientists and theologians who seem to believe both. Weird.

[trilobyte 0]

If I were to peer inside the heads of Christian evolutionists, then I am guessing that "impossible" isn't really the point.  Anything is possible with God, right?  The point is the evidence seen in God's creation, the evidence that indicates common descent.  Theistic evolutionists would rather believe that the creation story is allegorical than believe that creation itself is an illusion.

14407[/snapback]

 

Didn't you mean that the evidence indicates a common creator?

 

Let me explain it this way....

 

Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.

Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked “Why the perplexed look Lenny?â€ÂÂ

In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.

Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct Lego animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the Lego animals all but proved we’re all related. My teacher said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendents of an original Lego organism.

Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each Lego animal had the same type of feet. Each Lego animal had the same square blocky head, each lego block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.

Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of Lego people when Lenny blurted out with “Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common Lego block?

In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first Lego man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the Lego cow and the lego fish. No matter what is build from the Lego blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember Lego legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the Lego animal for their particular environment or lifestyle

Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks in a common design when He created life.

[TempestTossed 0]

Didn't you mean that the evidence indicates a common creator?

 

Let me explain it  this way....

 

Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.

Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked “Why the perplexed look Lenny?â€ÂÂ

In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.

Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct Lego animals proved it.  My teacher told us that the similarities of the Lego animals all but proved we’re all related.  My teacher said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendents of an original Lego organism. 

Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each Lego animal had the same type of feet. Each Lego animal had the same square blocky head, each lego block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.

Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny  the truth behind the evolution of Lego people when Lenny blurted out with “Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common Lego block?

In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first Lego man.  He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did.  The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks.  What works for us works for the Lego cow  and the lego fish. No matter what is build from the Lego blocks, they will always be similar.  The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose.  Remember Lego legs should be similar  Lenny, whether the  building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator.  The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the Lego animal for their particular environment or lifestyle 

Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks in a common design when He created life.

14415[/snapback]

Haha, that story is adorable. I think that Lego science teacher must be kind of dumb. Everyone knows that Lego stuffs are built by children and Lego nerds and the Lego factory workers, who are clearly seen building stuff. I might change my mind about that Lego science teacher if these Lego people s*xually reproduced with variations that can be naturally selected, if Lego people competed with each other for survival and S@xual reproduction, if Lego structures can be arranged by their traits in an objective multi-nested taxonomy resembling a family tree, if that family tree can be verified by geographic distribution, vestiges, atavisms, and Lego chunks found under the bed, and if those children, Lego nerds and factory workers are no place to be seen. Then I might change my mind about that Lego science teacher.

[Al650 0]

For whatever reason, a commitment has been made by the anti-Creation crowd. They must come here. Why? To defend evolution? No. Anyone can look into that all they want. I'm convinced that they need to watch lest too many people get convinced about Creation and dismiss evolution.

 

Why would that be a bad thing? Well, aside from creating a new, vague, undescribed "Dark Age," it would mean more people turning away from the words of men and back to the Word of God. I had zero interest or contact with evolution when I studied chemistry in college.

 

Oh well. They can say what they wish. As is written in Second Peter, 1:16: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." And 3:17 "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

 

I have examined the evidence and it is not convincing. As Pope Benedict said, "Those fooled by atheism... see no order..." And we must be on our guard against indifference as well.

 

God created. To say that He somehow used Evolution is pure speculation.

 

 

 

 

God bless,

Al

[ikester7579 19]

Basically, it's christian compromise that causes debates like this. And people wonder why I'm a literalist. You can't say you are a child of God, then draw your line in the middle of sin.

 

That's like saying there a halfway heaven. Where the christian compromiser thinks he will go to heaven. Even though his life represents hell. I don't think there will be a place in heaven where you will be planted in the ground where 1/2 of you burns in hell. While the other 1/2 can see heaven. You are either one or the other. There is no in-between.

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

God created. To say that He somehow used Evolution is pure speculation.

14469[/snapback]

I'm yet to hear a single YEC explanation as to how He did it. *poof*? How? Maybe you should fill us uniformed evolutionists in. YECs put so much emphasis on the 'how' they think evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1 but fail at explaining how it really went down. I really want to know.

 

That's like saying there a halfway heaven. Where the christian compromiser thinks he will go to heaven. Even though his life represents hell. I don't think there will be a place in heaven where you will be planted in the ground where 1/2 of you burns in hell. While the other 1/2 can see heaven. You are either one or the other. There is no in-between.

14469[/snapback]

You're condemning fellow Christians to hell with these words. Where is the substance to this aspersion?

I hope you see how it is an illogical and baseless leap to say "if you don't believe in my brand of YEC, you're going straight to hell!!!!"

[trilobyte 0]

Zedekiah Dacorath, How did the resurrection of Jesus Christ happen? *poof* He's alive?

 

Why is it you can believe that the resurrection actually happened..literally...YET can't believe Jesus made Eve from Adams rib?

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

Zedekiah Dacorath, How did the resurrection of Jesus Christ happen?  *poof* He's alive?

 

Why is it you can believe that the resurrection actually happened..literally...YET can't believe Jesus made Eve from Adams rib?

14492[/snapback]

Bad equivocation. The evidence favors the non-literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm not saying that it couldn't be so, just that the evidence points in a different direction.

 

How the resurrection happened? Your guess is as good as mine.

[trilobyte 0]

Tell me Zedekiah Dacorath, why did the early Christians and bible writers influenced by God ALSO present the creation as a literal historical event?

 

Do you no longer trust the bible?

 

Keep in mind....evidence also says a person can't come back to life on day 3. You do believe that actually happened??>

[Al650 0]

"And the man with the withered arm stretched forth his arm and it became whole like the other."

 

John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

 

 

Evidence misinterpreted, a world gone astray, serving the flesh and led away by the cares of the world. As I watched television, I was told by a scientist that if a planet had water and amino acids, poof, life. I accepted this on faith. It has never been proved.

 

God is either God as He describes Himself in the Bible or he is the invention of corruptible men with limited minds reshaping Him in a corruptible vision. I suggest anyone who doubts this look up the papers that have been written by men about creating a new, secular religion. They hate God and wish to recreate the earth and its history in their image and by the leading of their father, the devil.

 

 

 

God bless you and keep you in His care,

Al

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

Tell me Zedekiah Dacorath, why did the early Christians and bible writers influenced by God ALSO present the creation as a literal historical event?

 

Do you no longer trust the bible?

 

Keep in mind....evidence also says a person can't come back to life on day 3.  You do believe that actually happened??>

14495[/snapback]

1) Tradition, no other explanation... any number of reasons. We all take the same meaning from it, though.

 

2) Not your interpretation.

 

3) Same useless equivocation. We're not coming back three days after we die. But we're not true God, are we?

[ikester7579 19]

I hope you see how it is an illogical and baseless leap to say "if you don't believe in my brand of YEC, you're going straight to hell!!!!"

14478[/snapback]

I never said my brand of YEC. And I never said that if you don't believe the way I do you go straight to hell. But your hate for YEC blinds you to what I said to where you only see what you want to see. Also, God's word is not based in logic. So it is not logical.

 

But God's word does say that He is no respecter of persons. Which means that if He does not judge one the same as another. Then He has to let us all into heaven. Which includes all of the unsaved. Is that the type of heaven you hope to find when you get there? Or will it be a heaven where those who belong there will be there?

 

God's word says where the line is drawn. Do you draw it in another spot hoping that God draws it where you do? Also, show me a verse that says you can believe the exact opposite of what God's word says, and still be in the promise of going to heaven? You and I don't make the rules for what is required to enter heaven, God's word does. I suggest you read it more closely than trying to find someone to point your finger at as an excuse for what you believe. After all, is that not the reason you said what you did? And is that not the very reason you cannot stand YEC?

 

Your problem then is not with me, but it is with what is written. Because theistic evolution is not supported in one verse of God's word. And that my friend is not my fault. I did not write the book. Your beef is with God. Why don't you ask Him why His creation "seems" to support evolution, but yet His word does not? For if it is truth you are truly seeking, and you won't listen to others to find it. Then I suggest you go to the source. And quit using YEC as your escape goat.

[ikester7579 19]

Bad equivocation.  The evidence favors the non-literal interpretation of Genesis.  I'm not saying that it couldn't be so, just that the evidence points in a different direction.

 

How the resurrection happened?  Your guess is as good as mine.

14493[/snapback]

What qualification does one have to have to become an expert on what is non-literal in God's word? There is none, correct? So it is up to the individual to determine what is true, and what is a lie in God's word, correct? So how much of Genesis would you say is a lie because it does not go along with what you believe? Al of it?

 

Regardless of how you reword the meaning of lie or liar. A non-literal written book is basically a written lie. So how does a Just, Holy, Rightous, God get away with writting a non-literal book and still remain all of those things?

 

Are we to separate God's word into fiction and non-fiction? So which category would you place Genesis?

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

What qualification does one have to have to become an expert on what is non-literal in God's word? There is none, correct?

So it is up to the individual to determine what is true, and what is a lie in God's word, correct?

So how much of Genesis would you say is a lie because it does not go along with what you believe? Al of it?

14508[/snapback]

Not every word was written to be taken literally. You yourself take many verses metaphorically... your first question is half-thought out.

Yes, much like it was up to your judgment to deny anything that has to do with evolution.

 

You use the word lie to evoke emotion because there is no substance to this question.

 

Are we to separate God's word into fiction and non-fiction? So which category would you place Genesis?

14508[/snapback]

Again, you have the "if it isn't completely and utterly literal it is fiction and worthless." I don't buy the false dilemma. The only difference between what you and I draw from this book is that you think it makes scientific predictions. Everything else is still there : God created all and established His relationship with man.

 

 

I never said my brand of YEC. And I never said that if you don't believe the way I do you go straight to hell. But your hate for YEC blinds you to what I said to where you only see what you want to see.

Also, God's word is not based in logic. So it is not logical.

Sorry, I was reading what you posted literally and I must have missed the meaning. Can you explain?

I applied logic to your statement.

 

Is that the type of heaven you hope to find when you get there? Or will it be a heaven where those who belong there will be there?

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

We've all fallen short of the glory of God... you're different? Golden?

 

God's word says where the line is drawn. Do you draw it in another spot hoping that God draws it where you do? Also, show me a verse that says you can believe the exact opposite of what God's word says, and still be in the promise of going to heaven?

You just said :

And I never said that if you don't believe the way I do you go straight to hell.

My blind "hatred" must be causing me to see things

 

You and I don't make the rules for what is required to enter heaven, God's word does. I suggest you read it more closely than trying to find someone to point your finger at as an excuse for what you believe.

 

After all, is that not the reason you said what you did? And is that not the very reason you cannot stand YEC?

You're right, thankfully we don't. My fingers are pointed at God's Creation, yours are in your own interpretation of Genesis.

 

You're going to have to clarify, I'm not sure what thing I said you're referring to.

 

Your problem then is not with me, but it is with what is written. Because theistic evolution is not supported in one verse of God's word. And that my friend is not my fault. I did not write the book. Your beef is with God.

 

Why don't you ask Him why His creation "seems" to support evolution, but yet His word does not?

 

For if it is truth you are truly seeking, and you won't listen to others to find it. Then I suggest you go to the source.

Whatever you want to think is fine by me.

 

Why don't you ask God why your interpretation of the Bible isn't supported in His Creation? Why don't you ask yourself that?

 

Duly noted.

 

And quit using YEC as your escape goat.

Where'd this come from?

[Al650 0]

Science should be interpreted by the absolute truth of the Bible. Period.

 

And it is crystal clear that insisting that Genesis is not literally true is wrong. Jesus performed miracles that no scientist could prove even if he saw them. Jesus Christ is alive right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God bless,

Ed

[ikester7579 19]

Can God lie or not, and still be God?

 

That is the basic question I tried to ask in that post. God cannot even imply a lie. Or can He? So which is it?

 

And about evoking emotion:

 

You're condemning fellow Christians to hell with these words. Where is the substance to this aspersion?

I hope you see how it is an illogical and baseless leap to say "if you don't believe in my brand of YEC, you're going straight to hell!!!!"

What was that post for? Same thing correct? It's not my fault you can't believe the word literally. You were the one who evoked emotion. And this is a normal response evolutionists throw at YEC every chance they get when the word is brought out in it's true unedited, un-ignored literal form. If the word was not written that way, could I have used it in that manner? Here again, your beef is with God's word and the way it is written, and I did not write it.

 

So let me ask another question:

 

When you stand before God and He ask you about Genesis, do you actually think He will accept the words of you, or anyone else, calling it a myth or allegory for the sake of believing evolution over it?

 

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

Now what do you think worshipping the creature more than the Creator means? It is giving the creature supposed dominion over God as far as truth is concerned. And that is exactly what evolution does to God's word. It allows God's created creatures to dictate truth over what is written. Giving more power to the created creature than the Creator (God). Which God here even says that this will make the truth of God into a lie. Now why would God already know that? And what do you think represents that truth? It is God's word that is the represenatation of God's truth.

 

2thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

When one who knows better decides to believe a lie over truth and would rather mock God with that lie. God has a curse in which He can evoke on that person so that he will never see truth. A curse that can only be broken through prayer.

 

Can God lie, or imply a lie and still be God:

 

tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

And can the saved depart from God because they believe in a lie:

 

heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

 

You cannot depart from which you were never a part of. And the living God is Christ.

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

You've made your point abundantly clear : you honestly think non-literal is the same as a lie.

 

What was that post for? Same thing correct?

More a plea for reason.

 

 

And this is a normal response evolutionists throw at YEC every chance they get when the word is brought out in it's true unedited, un-ignored literal form.

Because literal is correct in every circumstance and everything else is a lie?

 

The True Unedited version is the King James, right?

 

 

When you stand before God and He ask you about Genesis, do you actually think He will accept the words of you, or anyone else, calling it a myth or allegory for the sake of believing evolution over it?

Luckily for both of us, we don't have to have everything straight. Because we don't. It isn't for the sake of evolution, it is for the sake of knowing His Creation better.

 

 

Now what do you think worshipping the creature more than the Creator means? It is giving the creature supposed dominion over God as far as truth is concerned. And that is exactly what evolution does to God's word. It allows God's created creatures to dictate truth over what is written. Giving more power to the created creature than the Creator (God). Which God here even says that this will make the truth of God into a lie. Now why would God already know that? And what do you think represents that truth? It is God's word that is the represenatation of God's truth.

It does no such thing. To claim so is false. You're going on with the tired literal-or-lie position. I don't buy it.

 

When one who knows better decides to believe a lie over truth and would rather mock God with that lie. God has a curse in which He can evoke on that person so that he will never see truth. A curse that can only be broken through prayer.

Maybe if you pray long enough you will see the truth in God's Creation and word and take Him out of the box that you've placed Him in.

 

If biology/geology/cosmology is true, God's word is a lie? How corrosive, insidious and arrogant this is.

[ikester7579 19]

You've made your point abundantly clear : you honestly think non-literal is the same as a lie.

Luckily for both of us, we don't have to have everything straight.  Because we don't.  It isn't for the sake of evolution, it is for the sake of knowing His Creation better.

Now what do you think worshipping the creature more than the Creator means? It is giving the creature supposed dominion over God as far as truth is concerned. And that is exactly what evolution does to God's word. It allows God's created creatures to dictate truth over what is written. Giving more power to the created creature than the Creator (God). Which God here even says that this will make the truth of God into a lie. Now why would God already know that? And what do you think represents that truth? It is God's word that is the represenatation of God's truth.

It does no such thing. To claim so is false. You're going on with the tired literal-or-lie position. I don't buy it.

 

When one who knows better decides to believe a lie over truth and would rather mock God with that lie. God has a curse in which He can evoke on that person so that he will never see truth. A curse that can only be broken through prayer.

Maybe if you pray long enough you will see the truth in God's Creation and word and take Him out of the box that you've placed Him in.

 

If biology/geology/cosmology is true, God's word is a lie? How corrosive, insidious and arrogant this is.

14552[/snapback]

Non-literal = a God (Genie) on your terms.

 

Literal = a God on His terms.

 

Why? Non-Literal means that you fill in the blanks of what you omit from the word of God. So how much of Genesis do you omit to make evolution true?

 

Example:

 

1) Would you say all of creation has to be omitted for evolution to work?

2) Would you say all of the flood has to be omitted for evolution to work?

3) Would you say all of the Red sea crossing has to be ommited for evolution to work?

4) Do you omit the first sin, which denies why Christ died for our sins?

 

I'm not the one who has to omit what is written so that what he wants to be true can become true.

 

So when you omit and change the word of God, does that redefined the truth of God? Or the truth you want to be as your God?

 

Also, which would you say dictates your truth? God or evolution?

Example:

If more evidence for evolution came up which denied 30% more of God's word. Which would you be more inclined to believe and why?

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

Why? Non-Literal means that you fill in the blanks of what you omit from the word of God. So how much of Genesis do you omit to make evolution true?

14554[/snapback]

You omit nothing to make modern biology fit with God's word. You'd have to omit things from your views, however.

 

Example:

 

1) Would you say all of creation has to be omitted for evolution to work?

2) Would you say all of the flood has to be omitted for evolution to work?

3) Would you say all of the Red sea crossing has to be ommited for evolution to work?

4) Do you omit the first sin, which denies why Christ died for our sins?

No omission from the Bible whatsoever. You don't have to; the meaning hasn't changed.

 

 

I'm not the one who has to omit what is written so that what he wants to be true can become true.

For what you believe to be true, you must omit the universe itself, the Creation.

 

So when you omit and change the word of God, does that redefined the truth of God? Or the truth you want to be as your God?

No omissions were made, nothing was redefined.

 

Also, which would you say dictates your truth? God or evolution?

God's word and Creation. So God all around.

 

Example:

If more evidence for evolution came up which denied 30% more of God's word. Which would you be more inclined to believe and why?

God's Word and Creation don't lie or deny each other.

 

 

It boils down to : Your interpretation of Genesis or the universe God has created.

[trilobyte 0]

Zedekiah Dacorath,

Was Adam formed from the dust?

or

Was Adam formed from primitive animals?

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

Zedekiah Dacorath,

Was Adam formed from the dust?

or

Was Adam formed from  primitive animals?

14558[/snapback]

The Creation, not being deceitful, indicates #2.

 

This passage isn't explicit on the method :

 

Genesis 1: 26-28 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

 

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

 

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

Genesis 2:4 literally suggests #1, but that would be in conflict with a literal read of the former passage.