Theory of evolution

News about humankind's turning from God.

Theory of evolution

Postby imirish01 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:20 am

I have not noticed the theory of evolution discussed here. I don't believe in it and believe God created. Plain and simple. But I was having a discussion with my niece over Easter and had a weaker comeback to Lucy and all the other "branches of humans" than I would have liked. I recall watching a lot of "Dr. Dino"-can't recall his name a few years ago, but I don't see him much on television. Anyway, don't know if anyone here has researched it, but would like to know of some good websites or information of how you counteract the family tree with apes...

I also don't believe that God started it and left it to evolve either...I think that's a pretty simple question to deal with. I am just having trouble with the finding of bones, particularly skulls, that they say are an older form of human.

Thanks for any input.
imirish01
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:55 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Jericho on Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:18 am

Reasons To Believe,http://www.reasons.org/, discuss topics like these. They also have a podcast you might want to check out.
Formerly SwordOfGideon
User avatar
Jericho
 
Posts: 4511
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 am
Location: Tx

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:46 am

Imirish01
There is a wealth of info on this site, www.answersingenesis.org.
here is a link to some info that will definitely help you.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... sing-links
and to their topic index:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... phabetical
and here are many videos about different topics that you may find useful, including 4 powerful questions to ask evolutionists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand
I hope that this helps you.
Patrick O'Rourke
How's that for an Irish name. :lol:
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby imirish01 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:12 pm

A very fine name Patrick! Where you raised Catholic as well?
Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.
imirish01
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:55 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Lorne on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:16 pm

My beliefs are simply that the Earth is very old, how old, we don't exactly know, but that every species that has ever existed was created by God, not evolved by means of natural selection and/or "accidental" mutation. I don't believe science is false, not at all, just some aspects of it are flawed, (climate science, evolution.... etc.)

Just about all "human ancestors" have been stricken from our "Evolutionary tree" meaning Lucy and all of those others are scientifically irrelevant now. Those other websites listed before me are also very good sources, so if debating is your cup of tea, there you have it. Here's another: http://www.godandscience.org/

Its sad how many Christians have fallen into the trap of evolution.... I remember I almost did.
John 14:6-7 - Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
User avatar
Lorne
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:47 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:52 am

imirish01,
no I wasn't raised catholic, but in a Baptist church. I am glad too, because the preacher there was a very good one. and instilled in me a love for God's Word, and for bible prophecy as well.

Lorne,
It can be proven through empirical science, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, please check out the topic index from answers in genesis that are in my earlier post. Look under geology and also a good website is www.ICR.org, the Institute for Creation Research. There are many areas of modern science that are flawed. The geneology in the bible is traced back to Adam and Eve, if the earth was vastly older than they, there are inconsistancies in the Genesis creation account. And yes, I have heard all the arguments about how a day of creation can be more than a day, that is also inconsistant with the words the bible uses, yom, always means a 24 hour period. I hope that you will read a little of what the answers in genesis site has to say on the matter. I just think that to say anything more than what the bible tells us literally is inviting compromise to the original Genesis account, I would love to hear what you think of their logical arguments for a young earth. Please dont think that I am being critical, but I only want to have dialogue, PM me if you want, or use this thread if imirish01 has no objections, or we can start a new thread.
Patrick
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Pretzelogical on Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:49 am

Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIH ... re=related

RC Sproul and Ben Stein about the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEMKVFEoOXE

The interviews with the experts of macro-evolution THEORY cleary shows that macro-evolution is a religion whereby no free will exists. It is a religion based on death. I personally paid good money to get a university degree of this THEORY, and I do not believe one word of it. There is no evidence for it. It is all speculation and fairy tale.

Now, expert evolutionists admit to "intelligent design" with many giving credit to a god who gave birth to Mother Earth, and that man can also be gods if they join in unity to worship Mother Earth.

More changes made to evolutionary theory as it is proven wrong over and over again. Dawkins speaking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi36 ... re=related

Part Four of Ben Stein's movie is ten minutes that explains/unexplains much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5BwnwU ... re=related

And the final Part has the interview with evolutionary expert Dawkins revealing how pathetically weak the theory of evolution is, with Dawkins saying it all began by intelligent design by anything but God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Csop4ROeNg&feature=fvw
Pretzelogical
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 10:58 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby imirish01 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:18 pm

I have heard that the years of Adam to today round out to about 6,000 years. However, we don't know how long Adam was in the garden prior to Eve's creation. The time frame is never really explored. On the other hand, I am not at all convinced science has adequately identified millions and billions years old through its testing. I completely disagree with determining time tables via layers in the dirt.

BTW, I don't mind if the topic is hijacked. :grin:
imirish01
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:55 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Jericho on Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:58 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the secular world human's have been around for about 200,000 years. Now if that were true why does the "majority" of our recorded history go back only three thousand years or so? Also I have trouble believing it would take 200,000 years to reach 6 billion people. Granted modern medicine is relatively new which has increased the population exponentially, still I would think if we were hundreds of thousands of years old we would have reach this point alot sooner.
Formerly SwordOfGideon
User avatar
Jericho
 
Posts: 4511
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 am
Location: Tx

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:49 am

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 1W0899.pdf

EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH
When a single bacterium is placed into an environment suitable for bacterial growth
and reproduction, the bacterium soon buds into two, and the two bacteria soon thereafter
become four, and the four soon thereafter become eight, and so on. If the conditions for
growth continue to be good, the population continues to double every set amount of time.
In this way bacterial populations follow a very predictable curve of exponential growth. In
fact, measuring the doubling rate of the population at any given point in time allows one to
calculate at least the minimum amount of time it would take the bacterial population to
achieve its current size (assuming a constant food supply, an unchanging offspring number,
an unchanging generation time, etc.). Applying that same principle to humans, from
the present rate of population increase one could derive the current population of humans
in about 4000 to 6000 years. Although the Bible claims that human longevity was greater
after the Flood, the generation times do not seem to be much different, and it is likely that
family sizes were larger. Human population growth rates are thus consistent with Biblical
claims.
FREQUENCY OF HUMAN BURIALS
If human history is not as the Bible indicates, but rather has followed evolutionary
history, then human population must have (somehow) remained at a constant low value up
until only a few thousand years ago. In this scenario the total number of humans who have
lived through time is many times larger than suggested in the Biblical scenario. This would
suggest a correspondingly larger number of human deaths (and burials). The total number
of human skeletons recovered in excavation seems smaller than what might be expected in
an evolutionary scenario, more in line with what might be expected in the Biblical scenario.
GENETIC LOAD
Whereas cells have a very faithful process of copying their DNA (and must have in
order to reproduce faithfully), mistakes occasionally do occur. These mistakes are called
mutations. Whereas many mutations bring about the death of the organism, some of them
do not. A vast percentage of those mutations which do not kill the organism are then
passed on faithfully to all descendants. As a result, mutations are accumulated in a given
lineage. The number of mutations accumulated in a population or species is called the
“genetic load” of that population or species.
Included within the genetic load of a species are all the genetic diseases of that species.
Except for illness and predators which tend to pick off the sicker members of the
population, the genetic load of a population tends to increase with time. The genetic load
increases faster the shorter the generation time, the greater the rate of population increase,
and the greater the time since the population began. In the evolutionary scenario humans
are descendant from apes who inherited and added to a genetic load they inherited from
their primate ancestors (who in turn inherited a genetic load from their ancestors, etc.).
This, plus the longer time scales of the evolutionary model would suggest that humans
should have an extremely large genetic load. In contrast, the Biblical scenario, with its
initially perfect (genetic load of zero) creation only 6000 to 8000 years ago would be expected
to produce a much, much smaller genetic load. Although precise determinations of
the genetic load of humans have not yet been made, it appears as if the genetic load of
humans is closer to the expectations of the Biblical scenario of human (and organismal)
history.
THE EVE HYPOTHESIS
Since different lineages would produce different accumulations of mutations, after two
lineages separate from each other, they would produce very different sets of mutations.
With constant mutation rates and constant population sizes, doubling the time since the
two lineages separated would double the number of mutational differences between the
two lines. As a result, counting the mutational differences between two organisms should
allow an estimate of the amount of time since the two organisms shared a common ancestor.
In human cells most of the DNA is found in the nuclei of the cells and is used to create
copies of the cell. However, there are organelles within human cells, called mitochondria
which have their own DNA, presumably to facilitate the reproduction of those organelles
within the cell. Human mitochondria, however, are all inherited from mothers (fathers only
contribute half a compliment of nuclear DNA and none of the organelles of the cell). Therefore,
counting the number of mutations which are different between the mitochondrial DNA
of two humans, an estimate can be made of the time since the two humans had a common,
ancestral mother. When this was done for humans across the planet, and constant population
sizes were assumed, it was inferred that all modern humans were descendant from an
individual woman between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago. Although this figure can be
made smaller (if there were population bottlenecks in human history), it is difficult to see
how this figure could be made larger. Yet, **** erectus fossils indicate both a worldwide
distribution of humans and what appear to be racial differences among humans dating back
to a time conventionally dated a million or so years before present. The mitochondrial DNA
mutation rate is thus inconsistent with the conventional dating of human fossils. In the
Biblical scenario, however, the H. erectus fossils would be interpreted to be only a few
thousand years old, and the population bottlenecks which are a part of Biblical history
could very possibly bring mitochrondrial divergence times to a comparable figure.
Later research on Y chromosomes (possessed only by males and thus passed on only
through the male line) discovered no observed mutations on the section of Y chromosome
examined in men in various places across the world. This suggests a much shorter time
scale for a common ancestor of humans than even suggested by mitochondrial DNA–even
more encouraging for the Biblical model.
In short, it would appear that several characteristics of human population and genetics
are more easily explained by the Biblical scenario of human history than they are explained
by the conventional, evolutionary view of human history.
1SCWise899
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Spreading Salt on Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:19 am

Our middle school group covered several weeks worth of info on this. We used the Creationsim book from Dr. Dino (the guy in jail for tax evasion unfortunately). His site does have some fabulous material on science and such, with a biblical perspective. www.drdino.com
Image
User avatar
Spreading Salt
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Washington

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby revelation12eleven on Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:44 pm

I just blogged about this...rather than reposting here you can get my thoughts on this at -

http://revelation12eleven.blogspot.com/2010/04/from-beginning-of-creation.html
Overcomer
User avatar
revelation12eleven
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:41 pm
Location: Gig Harbor, WA

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby A_Watchman on Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:52 pm

Just my two cents. First with a couple of questions? Who was responsible for the writing of the Holy Bible? At least the first five books, please? If I am correct in saying that Moses, and Aaron wrote the first five books, would I be wrong? The Lord gave him inspiration to so of the immeadiate history of his nation he lived in. Egypt. Remember he was educated there. Also of the stories of his family the Hebrew. The Wanderers. Starting with Adam, and Eve.
Lets worry about the King James, New English versions first.
He speaks of a time primordial. Before the initial establishment of government, or anything else that beyond family. The beginning as best as he can, he translatse the Lords explanation.
Can you imagine what it was like to have this potential fire inside this creature that just came, (within an relatively short amount of time), into Acknowledgement of itself. Your Thoughts can potentially dwell in this creatures mind. Then realizing that you need the Perfect example, you create the First wanted version. Not just form. But of Thought. Unfortunately the Thoughts become corrupted. By a creature who was once your most powerful General. Not because of existance, not because of his mate. Because this trickster, played a gambit.
I must digress for a moment. Has anyone ever read the Art of War? Sun Tzu stated that the highest level of war is deciet. Satan was already on the battlefield for our thoughts, from the onset of Thought.
Please understand, that I did pray about this before I began to write this.
Our forms are of this Earth. This universe. Were did it say that we all came from the Adam? That Adam was made mortal for his failure in choice. But his relationship was torn with the Lord, did it end? For he had two sons. Both gave offering to the Lord. The Lord chose the one who offered that which was equal in love for him. You ever hold a young goat, or sheep? Cute right? That is a base form of love. Abel offered that first. Cain did not. Another Thought came into being amongs the sons of Adam. Jealousy. Twisted to Hate. To kill what was not his to kill. Marked for all eternity,

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Where did Cains wife come from?
ELoeb
A_Watchman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Central PA

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:27 am

A_watchman,
I'm not sure if you have ever heard this explanation, but it is sound teaching according to the bible. Are you in doubt of the creation record given in Genesis? Please tell me if you have other questions, I will help you to find the answers. There should be no doubt that the creation record is true and we can know this for sure if we will logically look for the answers truthfully.
Patrick

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cains-wife

Sagan cleverly listed a number of common questions (including Cain’s wife) that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to supposedly prove the Bible is full of contradictions and can’t be defended. The truth is—most Christians probably couldn’t answer these questions. And yet there are answers. But since churches lack in the teaching of apologetics,5 particularly in regard to the book of Genesis, most believers in the church are not able to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

Why Is It Important?
Many skeptics have claimed that for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other “races” of people on the earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve. To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account of Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history. Defenders of the gospel must be able to show that all human beings are descendants of one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) because only descendants of Adam and Eve can be saved. Thus, believers need to be able to account for Cain’s wife and show clearly she was a descendant of Adam and Eve.

In order to answer this question of where Cain got his wife, we first need to cover some background information concerning the meaning of the gospel.

The First Man
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

We read in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” God did not start by making a race of men.

The Bible makes it clear that only the descendants of Adam can be saved. Romans 5 teaches that we sin because Adam sinned. The death penalty, which Adam received as judgment for his sin of rebellion, has also been passed on to all his descendants.

Since Adam was the head of the human race, when he fell we who were in the loins of Adam fell also. Thus, we are all separated from God. The final consequence of sin would be separation from God in our sinful state forever. However, the good news is that there is a way for us to return to God.

Because a man brought sin and death into the world, the human race, who are all descendants of Adam, needed a sinless Man to pay the penalty for sin and the resulting judgment of death. However, the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). What was the solution?

The Last Adam
God provided the solution—a way to deliver man from his wretched state. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that God provided another Adam. The Son of God became a man—a perfect Man—yet still our relation. He is called “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) because he took the place of the first Adam. He became the new head and, because He was sinless, was able to pay the penalty for sin:

For since by [a] man came death, by [a] Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
Christ suffered death (the penalty for sin) on the Cross, shedding His blood (“and without shedding of blood there is no remission,” Hebrews 9:22) so that those who put their trust in His work on the Cross can come in repentance of their sin of rebellion (in Adam) and be reconciled to God.

Thus, only descendants of the first man Adam can be saved.

All Related
Since the Bible describes all human beings as sinners, and we are all related (“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts 17:26), the gospel makes sense only on the basis that all humans alive and all that have ever lived (except for the first woman6 ) are descendants of the first man Adam. If this were not so, then the gospel could not be explained or defended.

Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).

This also means that Cain’s wife was a descendant of Adam. She couldn’t have come from another race of people and must be accounted for from Adam’s descendants.

The First Woman
In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.

Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to explain Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

Who Was Cain?
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). He and his brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth. Even though these three males are specifically mentioned, Adam and Eve had other children.

Cain’s Brothers and Sisters
In Genesis 5:4 we read a statement that sums up the life of Adam and Eve: “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.”

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”7

Scripture doesn’t tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve, but considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem logical to suggest there were many. Remember, they were commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

The Wife
If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations!

We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative.

A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”

And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch (Genesis 4:17).
The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23).
Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated.

Objections
God’s Laws
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister marriage. Some say that you can’t marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband before they are married because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of one blood. This law forbidding close relatives marrying was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). Provided marriage was one man for one woman for life (based on Genesis 1–2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally (before the time of Moses) when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham was married to his half-sister (Genesis 20:12).8 God’s law forbade such marriages,9 but that was some four hundred years later at the time of Moses.
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby A_Watchman on Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:45 am

Have you read the Torah? It speaks of Lilith, a woman, who was offered the chance to be the mate of Adam. In the first chapter of Genesis, it speaks that G-d created man. Then in the second chapter he created Adam. In his form. Yehushua said that the Father is Spirit. (thought). Our flesh is not as important as our minds. As Paul himself said, we do not wage war of flesh, but of mind.

Another thing. Since when is it our job to "defend" the word of the Lord? If it cannot stand on it's merits, which it does, there is no need to defend anything. To explain the dogma of this worldy form, is to be caught up in the battle between a Calvinist, and a Catholic. I will not be caught in that trap.
ELoeb
A_Watchman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Central PA

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:03 am

Have you read the Torah? It speaks of Lilith, a woman, who was offered the chance to be the mate of Adam. In the first chapter of Genesis, it speaks that G-d created man. Then in the second chapter he created Adam.


Thats very interesting,because it goes along way to explaining alot of questions that i've always been stumped on,such as where did cain and abels wives come from.Now if in the first chapter God creates man,then we have a pool of people that cain and abel could have married into.If i'm reading this correctly,then we have an established though undevine group of humans,then we get Adam in the second chapter,who is devine,but alas loses it.
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby A_Watchman on Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:17 am

Exactly! Praise the Lord!
ELoeb
A_Watchman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Central PA

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:26 am

Another thing,in Genesis 4:17, Enoch goes of and builds a city,now i used to think that this must be a very small city,because ther are not many people so far to populate it!
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:33 am

A_Watchman wrote:Have you read the Torah? It speaks of Lilith, a woman, who was offered the chance to be the mate of Adam. In the first chapter of Genesis, it speaks that G-d created man. Then in the second chapter he created Adam. In his form. Yehushua said that the Father is Spirit. (thought). Our flesh is not as important as our minds. As Paul himself said, we do not wage war of flesh, but of mind.

Another thing. Since when is it our job to "defend" the word of the Lord? If it cannot stand on it's merits, which it does, there is no need to defend anything. To explain the dogma of this worldy form, is to be caught up in the battle between a Calvinist, and a Catholic. I will not be caught in that trap.


A_watchman, can you point out where in the torah it speaks of Lillith? can you offer anything but subjective opinion of her marraige to Adam before Eve? Point out to me exactly what you are saying about Lilith, please, and provide scripture references. You also said" Yehushua said that the Father is Spirit. (thought).Also you said ( Then in the second chapter he created Adam.) " Please explain, include scripture reference to back up your claim that God the Father is Spirit/ Thought. And of your claim that God created Adam in the second chapter, the verses in Gen 2:1-2 would refute your claim entirely without a doubt, no question, but please, if you can, defend your premise.

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Plalgum,
The First Woman
In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.
---what more do you need to know? Did you even read the post that I made about where Cain's wife came from?

Patrick-edited many times to refute all the wrong things that were posted by A_watchman.It took me a while to point them all out.
Last edited by LONGINGFORHOME on Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:49 am

Hi Longing,
So alot of what you say hangs on Josephus being correct?
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:03 am

plalgum wrote:Hi Longing,
So alot of what you say hangs on Josephus being correct?


Plalgum,
How so? Please explain, I dont recall having mentioned Josephus in my post. And also, what dont you get about Eve being the mother of all living? That tends to be emphatically clear that all living humans were the decendants of Eve. That is taken directly from the bible. I dont understand your argument. Where is the contradiction in what I am saying?

It seems to me that Lilith is never mentioned in the torah, it is a myth of a supposed woman who was supposedly created out of dust at the same time as Adam. It is also a story that is extra-biblical and at the same time anti-biblical.
Please expound on your ideas/ arguments/ points.

Patrick
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:03 am

Agreed, LONGINGFORHOME. There is no mention of Lilith in the Torah. It's my understanding that she is nothing but a myth and as such should not be used to support a unscriptural premise that she existed at all let alone as a wife to Adam.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28951
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:10 am

plalgum wrote:Thats very interesting,because it goes along way to explaining alot of questions that i've always been stumped on,such as where did cain and abels wives come from.Now if in the first chapter God creates man,then we have a pool of people that cain and abel could have married into.If i'm reading this correctly,then we have an established though undevine group of humans,then we get Adam in the second chapter,who is devine,but alas loses it.


What??!!
Where did you get this idea from? Please use only scripture to back it up, as I have done. Scripture is very clear that Eve is the mother of ALL living humans. Genesis chapter 2 only expounds on Genesis chapter 1, to view it any other way is to invite compromise and unbiblical ideas. Also, please see Gen1:31, after God had finished creating, He viewed what He had created and called all of it good, I don't think Lilith or undivine humans could be called good, if you do, please explain.

Patrick
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:47 am

I have never read the Torah,and thought that it was painting a slightly different picture of the beggining.
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:52 am

LONGINGFORHOME wrote:
plalgum wrote:Hi Longing,
So alot of what you say hangs on Josephus being correct?


Plalgum,
How so? Please explain, I dont recall having mentioned Josephus in my post. And also, what dont you get about Eve being the mother of all living? That tends to be emphatically clear that all living humans were the decendants of Eve. That is taken directly from the bible. I dont understand your argument. Where is the contradiction in what I am saying?

It seems to me that Lilith is never mentioned in the torah, it is a myth of a supposed woman who was supposedly created out of dust at the same time as Adam. It is also a story that is extra-biblical and at the same time anti-biblical.
Please expound on your ideas/ arguments/ points.

Patrick



During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:34 am

plalgum wrote:I have never read the Torah,and thought that it was painting a slightly different picture of the beggining.


Technically the Torah is the first five books of the Bible.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28951
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:54 am

Abiding in His Word wrote:
plalgum wrote:I have never read the Torah,and thought that it was painting a slightly different picture of the beggining.


Technically the Torah is the first five books of the Bible.




Technically,Im really confused about differnt translations.The thing that comforts me most, because i am not amongst the learned and the wise, is that he writes his law on our hearts.
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Jericho on Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:30 pm

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.


It's certainly conceivable that Adam and Eve had many more children than what was mentioned in the Bible, considering there longer life spans back then. At that time brothers and sisters getting together wasn't taboo. Today when two closely related people have children, there is a great chance there children could have medical problems because they have similar defects in there DNA. However when Adam and Eve were created they had no defects and neither did there children. Only thru time did all the errors and defects in our DNA accumulate. I wouldn't believe in the Lilith story, the whole thing sounds very pagean.
Formerly SwordOfGideon
User avatar
Jericho
 
Posts: 4511
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 am
Location: Tx

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:40 pm

plalgum wrote:Technically,Im really confused about differnt translations.


Hi plalgum,

I only said "technically" because I think the Jews might include the Talmud/oral law in that term.

.... i am not amongst the learned and the wise....


That's not true.... :wink: I've read lots of your wise posts....
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28951
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby plalgum on Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:02 pm

Thankyou Abiding :grin:
Im not in your league though,
plalgum
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Crystal palace,SE london

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby A_Watchman on Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:31 pm

"A_watchman, can you point out where in the torah it speaks of Lillith? can you offer anything but subjective opinion of her marraige to Adam before Eve? Point out to me exactly what you are saying about Lilith, please, and provide scripture references. You also said" Yehushua said that the Father is Spirit. (thought).Also you said ( Then in the second chapter he created Adam.) " Please explain, include scripture reference to back up your claim that God the Father is Spirit/ Thought. And of your claim that God created Adam in the second chapter, the verses in Gen 2:1-2 would refute your claim entirely without a doubt, no question, but please, if you can, defend your premise."

My apologies. I mixed up my Talmud with my Torah. Yes, it is said in the Babylonian Talmudic Genesis that there was a character known as Lilith.
Concerning Yehushua said the Father is Spirit statement. To which I point to John 4:24. That we must also worship in him ins spirit and in truth. The concept of Spirit, old school, was what Thought that one does. What makes us, US.

Concerning the First Days of Earth was made and was finished on the 6th day. Lead from verse 31 of Chapter 1. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Lead to Chapter 2:1-3,

1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

So he created man on the sixth day, rested on the seventh, then it goes into the creation of Adam. Concerning Adams calling his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living? Adam calls her that. Not G-d. In fact she did not have a name until the fall.

Look I am not saying I know the answers. I am just bringing question of form of the interpretation, up till now
that we have been taught. Believe me when I say, I am asking for the Lord to help me with it.


Love in G-d, always.
ELoeb
A_Watchman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Central PA

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:58 pm

A_Watchman wrote:Concerning Adams calling his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living? Adam calls her that. Not G-d. In fact she did not have a name until the fall.


Technically, Adam didn't have a name either, right?

Gen 1:27 God created man (human being/Adam) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

But then when the woman was formed, the man did call her woman - because "she was taken out of man." This was prior to the fall.

Often names signified an event or emotion present upon the birth of an individual. Hence, the root from which Adam comes is "'ădâmâh" meaning ground or earth from which he was formed.

And technically, the man called the woman "lifegiver/Eve" because her seed would ultimately produce the Savior.

That's my understanding.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28951
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:32 pm

A_Watchman wrote:Concerning the First Days of Earth was made and was finished on the 6th day. Lead from verse 31 of Chapter 1. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Lead to Chapter 2:1-3,

1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

So he created man on the sixth day, rested on the seventh, then it goes into the creation of Adam. Concerning Adams calling his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living? Adam calls her that. Not G-d. In fact she did not have a name until the fall.


That all the host of the heavens and earth were finished by the time of the end of the 6th day, this is proof that Adam was created on the sixth day, and so was Eve. That is it, no more creation after that, nada, zip. So, the premise put forth that Adam was created after the 7th day in Genesis chap 2 is a faulty premise. The creation had been performed and had ended. This is the only logical way to see this.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11


As I stated earlier, Genesis chap 2 expounds on Genesis chap 1, period, it is not intended to show further creation.

Patrick
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby imirish01 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:42 pm

What little I have read about how the Jews wrote, style of writing, I note that they don't necessarily go in chronological order. It appears some of Genesis is a Jewish style of writing (can't recall the name) that is rather poetic. So, Genesis 2 does not necessarily follow Genesis 1 chronologically...? It appears chapter 2 expounds on chapter 1. So, good question/point regarding God having finished creating on the 6th day! Eve must have been created by the 6th day? Or is it that Eve was not created as Adam was, but that she was made from Adam and thus not created? Interesting... I need to see what word was used to describe Eve's creation vs. Adam's.

Don't mind the train of thought here regarding who came first, but am still curious regarding how long Adam and Eve may have been in the garden multiplying prior to their fall? This might account for the theory of the earth's age? It also may speak about how many humans were walking around the planet, prior to the fall. I am not sure if other Jewish writings talk about this or not. Could it be that God does not focus on other lineages because they don't tell the story that leads to our salvation?

Thanks for the lively and considerate (of each other) discussion.
imirish01
 
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:55 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby daffodyllady on Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:10 am

Do a little research on the origin of the character known as Lilith. She comes from demonic origin, and provides an antisemitic explanation of who the Jews are, (half-humans!) Today, Lilith is known as the name of a demon who kills babies.

I think this is reason enough to forsake any mythology that puts a woman called Lilith in the Garden of Eden!

Stick with the Scriptures. The Bible is the only religious written material that has proven power over demons. And that is all the proof anyone should need.
Daffodyllady
Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will recieve you... Abstain from all appearance of evil...Without holiness shall no man see the Lord.
daffodyllady
 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby Spreading Salt on Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:08 am

:a3:
Image
User avatar
Spreading Salt
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Washington

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby aaron on Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:27 am

Stick with the Scriptures. The Bible is the only religious written material that has proven power over demons. And that is all the proof anyone should need.


Good advice, this would keep us from getting sidetracked by evolution theories. I would also steer clear of Answers in Genesis, I've researched them and their teachings and found them way off and also they have a questionable history.

Stick with the Word! :a3:
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
-1 Timothy 6:12
aaron
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Theory of evolution

Postby LONGINGFORHOME on Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:23 am

aaron wrote: I would also steer clear of Answers in Genesis, I've researched them and their teachings and found them way off and also they have a questionable history.


Aaron,
Would you please elaborate on what you have found wrong with answers in genesis teachings, I am interested in hearing what you would have to say. Also, I was unaware of their questionable history, please tell me what this means as I have been pointing people in their direction for years to explain creation science to them. I have found them to be a good resource for empirical science and its applications concerning creation science objectives. I would appreciate your help, as I do not want to recommend them if they have been found to be an untrustworthy organization.
thanks,
Patrick
Deuteronomy 4:30-31
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
LONGINGFORHOME
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 am


Return to Apostasy Watch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron