Jesus would believe in Evolution?

[DogLady19]

Did you mean 2 Tim 2:14? I'm not sure what you refer to in Gal 5?

I agree, but inevitably this doesn't happen because public forums are open to the public which mean we have no way to know the actual standing of members, despite their assertions. For sure, I've come to see, that when people are open on forums as regards their name and gender and age etc... it is far more likely to be civilized, but the more a profile hides someone's identity, the more they are likely to be left fielders. My opinion of courser, for what it's worth.
Try not to be discouraged.

Galatians 5:19-21
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Yeah, 2 Timothy 2:14 applies as well...

And for what it's worth, I come by the name DogLady honestly... I am known by that nickname in many circles... ^_^ woof

Now you know. :)

Please don't stereotype. :)

 

[StanJ]

Galatians 5:19-21
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Yeah, 2 Timothy 2:14 applies as well...

And for what it's worth, I come by the name DogLady honestly... I am known by that nickname in many circles... ^_^ woof

Thanks, and I think I remember you saying something about that....sorry, bad short term memory. I have two dogs. A Blue/Queensland Heeler and a Brown Lab.

 

[DogLady19]

Thanks, and I think I remember you saying something about that....sorry, bad short term memory. I have two dogs. A Blue/Queensland Heeler and a Brown Lab.

I'm a canine behaviorist (among other things!).. I had two boxers, but they have now passed from old age...

 

[StanJ]

I'm a canine behaviorist (among other things!).. I had two boxers, but they have now passed from old age...

Here's a pic of mah bitches! (tongue in cheek) This photo is about 5 years old.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x419/Stan1953/IMG_2152.jpg

 

[DogLady19]

Here's a pic of mah bitches! (tongue in cheek) This photo is about 5 years old.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x419/Stan1953/IMG_2152.jpg

Pretty babies!

 

[Born_Again]

Okay, from the time God said "let there be light" till today, exactly how much time do you think has passed? We know it has been at least 2,000 years since Christ walked the earth, but science dictates the earth to be millions maybe even billions of years old. That surely does not fit biblical history... I will say this, before the thread turns, I don't support the earth only being 6,000 years old as Bishop Usher would have us believe. He left out lineage.

 

[DogLady19]

That surely does not fit biblical history...

I agree with you that Young Earth theory is seriously flawed... The Bible is not intended to be a scientific account of the universe's history any way. It is the story of God's relationship with man. I just got through explaining some of this on another thread, including fallaciously using Genesis to determine the age of the earth:

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21374-the-decline-of-christianity-in-the-west/page-2#entry249464

 

[JimParker]

Okay, from the time God said "let there be light" till today, exactly how much time do you think has passed? We know it has been at least 2,000 years since Christ walked the earth, but science dictates the earth to be millions maybe even billions of years old. That surely does not fit biblical history... I will say this, before the thread turns, I don't support the earth only being 6,000 years old as Bishop Usher would have us believe. He left out lineage.

<<That surely does not fit biblical history...>>

It cannot fit what does not exist.

The Bible is not a historical record of the formation of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system or our planet. The Bible is not a natural history book.

It is the revelation of God to man.

 

[StanJ]

I agree with you that Young Earth theory is seriously flawed... The Bible is not intended to be a scientific account of the universe's history any way. It is the story of God's relationship with man. I just got through explaining some of this on another thread, including fallaciously using Genesis to determine the age of the earth:

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21374-the-decline-of-christianity-in-the-west/page-2#entry249464

You haven't shown that as far as I can see. Do you also not believe what Moses wrote in Exodus?

 

[DogLady19]

You haven't shown that as far as I can see. Do you also not believe what Moses wrote in Exodus?

I haven't shown much at all. I'm expressing an educated opinion in furtherance of more discussion.

What specifically did Moses write in Exodus that you'd like to point out?

 

[StanJ]

I haven't shown much at all. I'm expressing an educated opinion in furtherance of more discussion.

What specifically did Moses write in Exodus that you'd like to point out?

Sorry can't remember what thread I posted it in, but you can read Ex 20:11 and 31:17 as well as 9 other uses of YOM all meaning a day.

 

[DogLady19]

Sorry can't remember what thread I posted it in, but you can read Ex 20:11 and 31:17 as well as 9 other uses of YOM all meaning a day.

I will repeat: Throughout the Old Testament, Yom is used to mean a 24-hour period of time AND to mean a season AND an undetermined period of time. I have yet to see any proof that the Yom in Genesis 1 means a 24-hour period vs some other period of time.

What Moses wrote in Exodus is true because it is God's Word. I think Genesis 3 illustrates clearly that God's Word is always true, but man's interpetation can be seriously (even fatally) flawed... Just sayin'...

 

[StanJ]

I will repeat: Throughout the Old Testament, Yom is used to mean a 24-hour period of time AND to mean a season AND an undetermined period of time. I have yet to see any proof that the Yom in Genesis 1 means a 24-hour period vs some other period of time.

What Moses wrote in Exodus is true because it is God's Word. I think Genesis 3 illustrates clearly that God's Word is always true, but man's interpetation can be seriously (even fatally) flawed... Just sayin'...

I know what you wrote DL19, it is just equivocation. The context of Gen 1 shows it means a day because they're all called days and qualified with morning and evening.

So Moses states six actual days in Exodus but he meant something different in Genesis? I don't think so Tim!

 

[Born_Again]

<<That surely does not fit biblical history...>>

It cannot fit what does not exist.

The Bible is not a historical record of the formation of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system or our planet. The Bible is not a natural history book.

It is the revelation of God to man.

Um, that didn't answer my question... like, at all. The word history in itself, look it up. Obviously the events in the Bible did happen. So, I am simply asking, in the interest of how old we feel out planet may be, vs what science says, how long ago was that? Its a valid question. Simply saying It is the revelation of God to man doesn't do anything other than muddy the waters. If you cant answer the questions, then please don't reply.

 

[JimParker]

Um, that didn't answer my question... like, at all. The word history in itself, look it up. Obviously the events in the Bible did happen. So, I am simply asking, in the interest of how old we feel out planet may be, vs what science says, how long ago was that? Its a valid question. Simply saying It is the revelation of God to man doesn't do anything other than muddy the waters. If you cant answer the questions, then please don't reply.

<< So, I am simply asking, in the interest of how old we feel out planet may be, vs what science says, how long ago was that? >>

Scientists put the age of the Earth at around 4 billion years.

The Bible does not address the issue.

<<If you cant answer the questions, then please don't reply.>>

No need to be rude.

 

[DogLady19]

"The context of Gen 1 shows it means a day because they're all called days and qualified with morning and evening."

Aw, so now we look into the original Hebrew meanings of "morning" and "evening"... and see that are used in the OT to also mean "the beginning" and "the ending" both literally and figuratively...

Question: Do you believe that when God said "Let there be light" it came to be in an instant? Or was it a gradual lightening up?

If it was an instant flash, the First Day did not have a dawn, as per Genesis 1:5

If it was a gradual lightening up, we cannot calculate how long the First Day was unless we know how long it took to fully lighten up.

And it stands to logic that if First Day was an undetermined period of time, why would Second through Seventh Days be literal 24-hour days?

...something to ponder...

 

[StanJ]

Aw, so now we look into the original Hebrew meanings of "morning" and "evening"... and see that are used in the OT to also mean "the beginning" and "the ending" both literally and figuratively...

Question: Do you believe that when God said "Let there be light" it came to be in an instant? Or was it a gradual lightening up?

If it was an instant flash, the First Day did not have a dawn, as per Genesis 1:5

If it was a gradual lightening up, we cannot calculate how long the First Day was unless we know how long it took to fully lighten up.

And it stands to logic that if First Day was an undetermined period of time, why would Second through Seventh Days be literal 24-hour days?

...something to ponder...

You have to qualify that because ‛ereb and bôqer simply connote dusk and dawn as per Strong's.

Gen 1:1 is a synopsis of Gen 1:3-31 and v2 starts from there and goes on to highlight the Creation days starting in v3.

IMO, the light was instant. "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" Nothing at all to show it was anything but instant.

 

[DogLady19]

You have to qualify that because ‛ereb and bôqer simply connote dusk and dawn as per Strong's.

Gen 1:1 is a synopsis of Gen 1:3-31 and v2 starts from there and goes on to highlight the Creation days starting in v3.

IMO, the light was instant. "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" Nothing at all to show it was anything but instant.

If it was instant (which is what I believe too), then the First Day did not have a literal morning... Morning, or dawn, is a gradual lightening up... So, perhaps the 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days...

Also, the sun was not created until the 4th Day, so Days 1-3 did not have mornings as we perceive them.

 

[StanJ]

If it was instant (which is what I believe too), then the First Day did not have a literal morning... Morning, or dawn, is a gradual lightening up... So, perhaps the 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days...

Also, the sun was not created until the 4th Day, so Days 1-3 did not have mornings as we perceive them.

Well that's how it is now of course but at that time, as I said, it is a story that is in sections. V2 starts with now, which means at that point in time. Many things created on the first day are not as they were afterwards, including life. Then, the chicken came before the egg, not subsequent to those days. Although not worded as such, God also created pro-creation within life, when He created life.

Actually it takes a bit to study this, but what God did in day three was enable the lights to be seen THROUGH the canopy of water He created that surrounded the earth in day two.

 

[DogLady19]

Well that's how it is now of course but at that time, as I said, it is a story that is in sections. V2 starts with now, which means at that point in time. Many things created on the first day are not as they were afterwards, including life. Then, the chicken came before the egg, not subsequent to those days. Although not worded as such, God also created pro-creation within life, when He created life.

Actually it takes a bit to study this, but what God did in day three was enable the lights to be seen THROUGH the canopy of water He created that surrounded the earth in day two.

But this instant flash of light that shone through a canopy of water still didn't cause a dawn to occur (or a dusk). I think this is sufficient to doubt the literal translation of the creation Days 1-4 to 24-hour periods of time.