The Great Deception

[DNB]

Maybe you missed these verses, DNB. Every living thing fed on herbs and fruit before the fall of Creation (which fall is affirmed in Romans 8). Not a thing was killed before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Sad that you refuse to align with God's Word.

Gen 1:29-30 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Rom 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. (20) For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; (21) because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (22) For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

My point was, by saying that something had to die, was simply to prove that the concept of death was not foreign to the first humans on earth.
And the death that I was referring to, was the plants and vegetation. Adam would have witnessed their decay once their fruit was plucked from the stem, or the leaves were pulled from the head. Plants are living organisms, preparing and ingesting these life forms imply death.
That was my only point.
I am fully aware that man's diet changed around Genesis 9, but either way, what goes into the stomach, must be dead first.

 

[Stumpmaster]

My point was, by saying that something had to die, was simply to prove that the concept of death was not foreign to the first humans on earth.
And the death that I was referring to, was the plants and vegetation. Adam would have witnessed their decay once their fruit was plucked from the stem, or the leaves were pulled from the head. Plants are living organisms, preparing and ingesting these life forms imply death.
That was my only point.
I am fully aware that man's diet changed around Genesis 9, but either way, what goes into the stomach, must be dead first.

Plants are not sentient, so if you want to be pedantic lets specify that the death of sentient beings had not occurred prior to Adam's sin.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

 

[DNB]

You're still not getting the full ramifications of the fall, knowing what sin is was not the problem, its the consequences of knowing it that is the issue. For God, the consequences of knowing sin is zero, because God is impervious to its effects, we aren't, and that's why the atonement was inevitable. Why you are bringing God into this equation is beyond me, because the creation could never hope to compare to the holiness of God. Unless you are going to claim to be without sin like God, at which point John would call you a liar.

Sorry DCM, i think the point may have been lost or confused over time? I'm not sure myself where the contention lies right now?
We both agree that the knowledge of good and evil (KGE) is not a sin. And I assume that we agree that God does not create evil things.
Thus, there are no inevitable consequences of KGE, ....but only in the hand of the unwise and imprudent. Which you implied by saying '...its the consequences of knowing it that is the issue..'.
But Adam sinned prior to gaining this knowledge, therefore, I think, the focus is not the Tree, nor what it represented that becomes a doctrinal issue, necessarily, but the simple act of defiance to God's command, irrespective of what the prohibition pertained to.
But, you see, God does not make restrictions frivolously, or without profound grounds. So, yes, it was in the best interest of Adam & Eve to resist eating of the fruit, for both reasons i.e. God the Creator said so, and God knows best.

 

[DNB]

Plants are not sentient, so if you want to be pedantic lets specify that the death of sentient beings had not occurred prior to Adam's sin.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Yes, let's be pedantic for the sake of argument, ....but, that was not the argument, entirely.
I was supplementing my grounds about the awareness of death prior to the fall, by making this point. But mainly, I had argued that Adam would not have understood the injunction, had he been unaware of the concept of death. Or, if there was no death originally, would the earth eventually over-populate. And, if not, what is the ideal age to stop growing. etc...

But, sorry SM, I must admit that I didn't quite understand what your post was referring to, at least in regard to my post? I should've said so at the start. I tried to give a relevant answer, but I don't think that I did.
I know that your post was taken from another topic, so that it may not fit perfectly, but I was thrown-off with your last remark about the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. I almost thought that your post was not intended for me?
But, either way, I think that I may have missed your point, sorry!

 

[Stumpmaster]

Yes, let's be pedantic for the sake of argument, ....but, that was not the argument, entirely.
I was supplementing my grounds about the awareness of death prior to the fall, by making this point. But mainly, I had argued that Adam would not have understood the injunction, had he been unaware of the concept of death. Or, if there was no death originally, would the earth eventually over-populate. And, if not, what is the ideal age to stop growing. etc...

But, sorry SM, I must admit that I didn't quite understand what your post was referring to, at least in regard to my post? I should've said so at the start. I tried to give a relevant answer, but I don't think that I did.
I know that your post was taken from another topic, so that it may not fit perfectly, but I was thrown-off with your last remark about the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. I almost thought that your post was not intended for me?
But, either way, I think that I may have missed your point, sorry!

As stated previously, DNB, I am posting material for your consideration.

adapted here for your consideration, DNB.

Over the years I have engaged with many forumists who hold a very low view of Scripture and who have a scant regard for the cohesive harmony of the doctrines that derive from it. Rather than insist they adopt my high view of Scripture as having no contradictions with its doctrines precluding evolutionist theories, arguments, claims etc., I submit my reasoning and references in the hope that those opposed to believing in totality what God has inspired to be written for our benefit will reconsider their contradictory unbelief and refrain from undermining Biblical doctrine.

When I express my opinion that Theistic Evolutionists are not Bible-believers I do so in the hope that this will give pause for thought and examination by them as to whether they are in the faith, 2 Cor 13:5, and my inclusion of the genealogy associated with Jesus is to refute the claims of those who adhere to the TE argument that the Genesis account of Creation is merely allegorical, that there was no literal Adam and Eve, no literal Garden of Eden, no literal Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, no literal manifestation of Satan through a serpent, and no fall of Creation from unblemished perfection to cursed corruption, entropy and decay.

The Bible clearly states that sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and that death spread to all men, reigning from Adam to Moses even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression. That's the bad news but the God News is that eventually death will be defeated and heaven will house all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour on the basis of His shed blood which washes clean of sin. Rev 1:5.

 

[Taken]

The Great Deception
^ OP

Evolution-
Simply means:
"something" that develops "gradually".

God Revealed:
* He CREATED "KINDS" of "Seeds" and "KINDS" of Bodies.
* To every Seed God "CREATED", God gave those Seeds "their OWN Body's, to "Reproduce" its Same "KIND" of "Thing".
* Every "Created" BODY..."develops" (evolves) gradually.


1 Cor 15:

1. [38] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

* Gods "KINDS" of Bodies are Revealed IN Scripture.

Gen 1
1 Cor 15

KINDS...for example:
Man-Kind..Habitat, surface of the earth
Beast-Kind...Habitat, surface of the earth
Flying-Kind...Habitat, air above the earth
Swimming-Kind...Habitat, waters

They all begin Life from a Seed, and "evolve" by Gradual Development.

They DO NOT Evolve, by MIXING "KINDS".
(As some theories suggest)
Man is from a mans Seed and evolves as a man.
Animal is from an Animals Seed and evolves as an animal.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[DNB]

As stated previously, DNB, I am posting material for your consideration.

Over the years I have engaged with many forumists who hold a very low view of Scripture and who have a scant regard for the cohesive harmony of the doctrines that derive from it. Rather than insist they adopt my high view of Scripture as having no contradictions with its doctrines precluding evolutionist theories, arguments, claims etc., I submit my reasoning and references in the hope that those opposed to believing in totality what God has inspired to be written for our benefit will reconsider their contradictory unbelief and refrain from undermining Biblical doctrine.

When I express my opinion that Theistic Evolutionists are not Bible-believers I do so in the hope that this will give pause for thought and examination by them as to whether they are in the faith, 2 Cor 13:5, and my inclusion of the genealogy associated with Jesus is to refute the claims of those who adhere to the TE argument that the Genesis account of Creation is merely allegorical, that there was no literal Adam and Eve, no literal Garden of Eden, no literal Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, no literal manifestation of Satan through a serpent, and no fall of Creation from unblemished perfection to cursed corruption, entropy and decay.

The Bible clearly states that sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and that death spread to all men, reigning from Adam to Moses even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression. That's the bad news but the God News is that eventually death will be defeated and heaven will house all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour on the basis of His shed blood which washes clean of sin. Rev 1:5.

But SM, people don't gratuitously and arbitrarily, offer others information about a subject matter that may, or may not, be of any relevance to them?
In other words, why in the world are you sending me an exposition that attempts to refute Theistic Evolution?
I can only assume that you believe, that I adhere to TE sentiments?
And yet, I explicitly, and severally, expressed my conviction of a literal 6 day creation period, with a day equaling 24 hours.
'... Again, i am a Biblical literalist, I believe implicitly with the Genesis account of creation, 6 24 hr days....'
Therefore, and as I also stated earlier, I find absolutely no relevance to your post, to the point that I was under the impression that you sent it to the wrong person? And I reiterate that sentiment now?

 

[Bobby Jo]

Evolution-
Simply means:
"something" that develops "gradually".

Find a better dictionary.

Bobby Jo

 

[Stumpmaster]

Hi DNB. Some points here to discuss whilst in lockdown.

Thus, I don't believe that Death was a foreign concept to man before the fall, but rather an evidential fact.
Therefore, I am compelled at this point, as @Jane_Doe22 had said, that the consequence of eating from the tree was a spiritual ramification, not a physical one.

What evidence does the Bible give of actual death before the fall? None. Before the fall Creation was unblemished by entropy, corruption and decay. The environment of the Garden of Eden did not require things to die.The harvesting and consumption of plants is not proof or evidence of death, but we can agree that Adam and Eve initially understood from their communion with the LORD that they would lose their immortality and fracture their relationship with Him if they contravened His command. If you are not an adherent of TE there is no need to hypothesise that the death clause only extended to spiritual death.

2nd Question meaning, if humans had children, then children grew. If they grew eternally, how old will they be?
The Tree of Life was in the Garden of Eden, before man had sinned, i.e. before there was allegedly no death.(sic) What was it's purpose therefore if no one died?
So, all my observations were alluding to the fact that physical death was in the world before the fall.
The position that I hold at this point, is that man was created mortal and required the Tree of Life to protract his life. His sin caused him to be expelled from the Garden, with no access to the tree of Life, and therefore, he shalt surely die physically, and remain so.
I guess spiritually may not have been the best way to express the ramifications of the fall, without further explanation. For I meant it as his spirit will not rise again.

Certainly the Tree of Life was sustaining Adam and Eve and would have kept them alive forever if they had retained access to it, something Satan deceived them into thinking would be still possible after they partook of the forbidden fruit, but which God now also prohibited and prevented after He had passed sentence on them and covered their fallen selves.
Gen 3:21-24 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Well, I don't believe that the existence or prohibition of the TOTKOGAE was just for trust, as though any forbidden object would have sufficed in order to instill faith and obedience.
Both God and Satan knew that such a powerful knowledge, in the hands of the naive and immature, would be utterly destructive. Introduce a child to sex, and hell will abound. But, when practiced by the wise, loving and decent, it can be beneficial.
Thus, I do believe that it exposed a creature's propensity to sin (disobedience in this case), even before the fall, or before any 'ontological' changes took place (Genesis 3:14-19), (I don't believe in fallen nature). Thus, although Christ's lordship was ordained before the world began, it was necessary to expose man's defiance to his Creator, and conversely, Jesus' uncompromised love for his Father. His Messiaship was truly deserved, and not favouritism.
Thus, the TOGAE had a significance beyond just it's appearance, if you will. Wise men don't sin, with or without the knowledge of sin. Wisdom is greater than iniquity, wisdom exposes the death of morality and character that is behind the acts of sin. I think that the TOGAE was necessary to reveal how a creature with both, a moral awareness (image of God) and free-will, will defy his Creator.

While it is true that defying orders that forbid anything will always have consequences, the Biblical narrative in the Genesis account specifies fruit from a tree which could only be sampled in an act of disobedience. As you may know, the term "experiential knowledge" is used to describe something that is only known through personal testing and participation.
[Indo-European verbal base *per- "test, risk," seen also in perītus "practiced, experienced," experior, experīrī "to put to the test, attempt, have experience of, undergo" (see EXPERIENCE entry 1) and opperior, opperīrī "to wait, wait for"; these have been compared with Greek peîra "trial, attempt, experience," peiráomai, peirâsthai "to make a trial of, attempt," émpeiros "experienced"] [Merriam-Webster]
Adam and Eve not only tested the forbidden fruit, but it also tested them, such was its nature and purpose. What they experienced as a result of consuming it was just as much a consequence of their disobedience as it was of the forbidden nature and material constituency of the fruit.
Gen 3:6-7 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

But SM, people don't gratuitously and arbitrarily, offer others information about a subject matter that may, or may not, be of any relevance to them?
In other words, why in the world are you sending me an exposition that attempts to refute Theistic Evolution?
I can only assume that you believe, that I adhere to TE sentiments?
And yet, I explicitly, and severally, expressed my conviction of a literal 6 day creation period, with a day equaling 24 hours.
'... Again, i am a Biblical literalist, I believe implicitly with the Genesis account of creation, 6 24 hr days....'
Therefore, and as I also stated earlier, I find absolutely no relevance to your post, to the point that I was under the impression that you sent it to the wrong person? And I reiterate that sentiment now?

The relevance is in whether beliefs are correctly aligned with the Word of God or subject to deviations that have consequences.

Blessings in Christ.

 

[DNB]

What evidence does the Bible give of actual death before the fall? None. Before the fall Creation was unblemished by entropy, corruption and decay. The environment of the Garden of Eden did not require things to die.The harvesting and consumption of plants is not proof or evidence of death, but we can agree that Adam and Eve initially understood from their communion with the LORD that they would lose their immortality and fracture their relationship with Him if they contravened His command.

I gave more than just one reason why I thought that death may have been a concept understood by man, prior to the fall.

Certainly the Tree of Life was sustaining Adam and Eve and would have kept them alive forever if they had retained access to it,...

Therefore, is it not understood that Adam would have died if, for one, he did not eat, two, if he did not eat of the TOL? Of course it does, for when one eats, one defecates, and where there is refuse, there is waste. These are biological facts that evidence the cyclical nature and ontology, of the earth and its inhabitants. All creatures, including plant life, grow and die. The earth cannot be populated indiscriminately and perpetually, something must give. Death was by design. Adam and Eve were created mortal.

Adam and Eve not only tested the forbidden fruit, but it also tested them, such was its nature and purpose. What they experienced as a result of consuming it was just as much a consequence of their disobedience as it was of the forbidden nature and material constituency of the fruit.

All that God created was good, he did not create a tree that was inherently evil. Therefore, I don't know what you mean by '...the forbidden nature and material constituency of the fruit...'? Knowledge of good & evil, is not forbidden, as God's heavenly host had this awareness, as did He. Nor was the material constitution of the fruit, consequential, ....unless you meant something else, this is absurd?
The Tree was planted for a reason, as to exactly what, I am not entirely sure, but can only speculate at this point...
...Man's desire to gain the knowledge that is reserved for the gods, and God, was improper. But God obliged them, and we saw the results i.e. autonomous man, the most inept and destructive steward that the universe had produced.
Since man, to his own destruction, did not desire God as their Lord, God made the man Jesus to be their King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
Thus, man's demotion was two-fold.

The relevance is in whether beliefs are correctly aligned with the Word of God or subject to deviations that have consequences.

You are still confusing me? That statement can apply to any thread.

 

[Enoch111]

What evidence does the Bible give of actual death before the fall? None.

Correct. None whatsoever. Death was a RESULT of Adam's disobedience (even though Eve was also to blame) (Romans 5:12).

The Bible speaks of the first death and the second death. The first death is physical (the separation of the soul and spirit from the body). The second death is eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire. At that time physical death (*Death* personified in Revelation, thus "cast into the Lake of Fire") will come to an end, and eternal death will exist in Hell.

And death and [Hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the Lake of Fire. (Rev 20:14,15)

Since this thread is about the Great Deception, currently one aspect of the great deception is to falsely teach (1) that there is Soul Sleep, (2) that there is Annihilation, and (3) that eternal torment in Hell is not a reality which the unsaved will face. But the unsaved dead are presently in Hades (in the heart of the earth), and after the Great White Throne Judgment, they will be in the Lake of Fire. This should be a warning to all unbelievers, agnostics, and atheists.

 

[Stumpmaster]

I gave more than just one reason why I thought that death may have been a concept understood by man, prior to the fall.

Yes, reasons that do not align with Scripture. Things were different before the fall, the physiology and ecology was similar to what it will be like in heaven, where there will be no death.

Therefore, is it not understood that Adam would have died if, for one, he did not eat, two, if he did not eat of the TOL? Of course it does, for when one eats, one defecates, and where there is refuse, there is waste. These are biological facts that evidence the cyclical nature and ontology, of the earth and its inhabitants. All creatures, including plant life, grow and die. The earth cannot be populated indiscriminately and perpetually, something must give. Death was by design. Adam and Eve were created mortal.

Once again the alignment with Scripture is lacking for these assertions. Scripture provides that the original Creation did not include the necessity for death which Scripture tells us is an enemy of God, and with the Tree of Life accessible in the G of E the concept of death (not the evidence or experience of it) only arose as the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit, the concept which the LORD explained to Adam and Eve so they have no excuse that they were not adequately warned.

All that God created was good, he did not create a tree that was inherently evil. Therefore, I don't know what you mean by '...the forbidden nature and material constituency of the fruit...'? Knowledge of good & evil, is not forbidden, as God's heavenly host had this awareness, as did He. Nor was the material constitution of the fruit, consequential, ....unless you meant something else, this is absurd?

All that God created WAS good, including the TOTKOGAE because it provided the test of the trust that God required in His relationship with Adam and Eve. I believe the inclusion of the TOTKOGAE in the G of E was integral to God's relationship with Adam and Eve, and by implication from a historical perspective, also integral to His relationship with His Creation, particularly those whom He foreknows in eternity to be His flock. As for the constituency of the fruit, yes Eve saw it did look good for fruit, yes Eve found it pleasant to the eyes, and yes Eve had a desire for it because she believed it would make her wise, but my point is that regardless of whether the fruit contained any substance that enhanced their faculties, and regardless of it being risky for them to disobey God by eating it, the experience that followed and the consequences that ensued amount to the KNOWLEDGE that was gained by Adam and Eve.
Gen 3:4-7 And the serpent said unto the woman, You shall not surely die: (5) For God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The Tree was planted for a reason, as to exactly what, I am not entirely sure, but can only speculate at this point...
...Man's desire to gain the knowledge that is reserved for the gods, and God, was improper. But God obliged them, and we saw the results i.e. autonomous man, the most inept and destructive steward that the universe had produced.
Since man, to his own destruction, did not desire God as their Lord, God made the man Jesus to be their King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.Thus, man's demotion was two-fold.

Opinionology is an aspect of Theology to consider, the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was so, and I can only hope you will do the same.

You are still confusing me? That statement can apply to any thread.

We all must test and judge what is said. When I say "The relevance is in whether beliefs are correctly aligned with the Word of God or subject to deviations that have consequences", it is because my intention in corresponding with others is to promote spiritual growth and life among whosoever will align with the Word of God.

 

[DNB]

Yes, reasons that do not align with Scripture. Things were different before the fall, the physiology and ecology was similar to what it will be like in heaven, where there will be no death.

Let me see you align what you just said above, with Scripture? ....Food for Stomachs, Stomachs for Food, God will do away with them both (1 Corinthians 6:13). You're really becoming annoying, seriously!

Scripture provides that the original Creation did not include the necessity for death which Scripture tells us is an enemy of God,

Where did you get the above from Scripture? God warned that the wages of sin is death, and this also right at the inception to Adam & Eve. You're the un-Scriptural one SM.

Scripture provides that the original Creation did not include the necessity for death which Scripture tells us is an enemy of God, and with the Tree of Life accessible in the G of E the concept of death (not the evidence or experience of it) only arose as the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit, the concept which the LORD explained to Adam and Eve so they have no excuse that they were not adequately warned.

You're becoming extremely annoying, honestly!

but my point is that regardless of whether the fruit contained any substance that enhanced their faculties, and regardless of it being risky for them to disobey God by eating it, the experience that followed and the consequences that ensued amount to the KNOWLEDGE that was gained by Adam and Eve.

As I said, God does not forbid indiscriminately, there was a reason that he prohibited man to eat from the TOGE. But, that exposed a different facet to man's relationship with God, and thus raised other doctrinal implications, as I described earlier.

Opinionology is an aspect of Theology to consider, the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was so, and I can only hope you will do the same.

You are the only one with an opinion around here StumpMaster, that actually thinks it's not. You're beginning to show a real delusion. Don't try and speak authoritatively on a Biblical matter, that Scripture just does not give you license to.
You're getting to be very annoying.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Let me see you align what you just said above, with Scripture? ....Food for Stomachs, Stomachs for Food, God will do away with them both (1 Corinthians 6:13). You're really becoming annoying, seriously!

Rom 8:20-21 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope, (21) Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I hoped we were having a productive discussion DNB, but since you find my input so annoying let me quote from Albert Barnes' Commentary regarding the difference between the fallen and unfallen state of Creation:

Romans 8:21 From the bondage of corruption - This does not differ materially from “vanity,” Rom_8:20. It implies that this state is not a willing state, or not a condition of choice, but is one of bondage or servitude (see Rom_7:15-24); and that it is a corrupt, imperfect, perishing condition. It is one that leads to sin, and temptation, and conflict and anxiety. It is a condition often which destroys the peace, mars the happiness, dims the hope, enfeebles the faith, and weakens the love of Christians, and this is called the bondage of corruption. It is also one in which temporal death has dominion, and in the bondage of which, believers as well as unbelievers shall be held. Yet from all this bondage the children of God shall be delivered.

Where did you get the above from Scripture? God warned that the wages of sin is death, and this also right at the inception to Adam & Eve. You're the un-Scriptural one SM.

There is nothing unscriptural about referring to death as the last enemy of God.
1Co 15:20-26 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. (22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (24) Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

You are the only one with an opinion around here StumpMaster, that actually thinks it's not. You're beginning to show a real delusion. Don't try and speak authoritatively on a Biblical matter, that Scripture just does not give you license to.
You're getting to be very annoying.

I am disappointed but not surprised that you have resorted to abuse. I forgive you but it is best we discontinue our discourse rather than it cause you to stray further in this direction.
Abusive ad hominem argument (or direct ad hominem) is associated with an attack to the character of the person carrying an argument. This kind of argument, besides usually being fallacious, is also counter productive as a proper dialogue is hard to achieve after such an attack.[18][19][20][Wkpd]

 

[quietthinker]

"With every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness" (2 Thessalonias 2:10-12).

Evolution is that powerful delusion that God has sent on those who are perishing. This is why, in spite of substantive and accurate scientific evidence that totally disproves the theory, those who are committed to it will not accept it, and adamantly sticks to their belief in it.

The scary part is that there is now an outbreak of the delusion in large areas of the Christian church having the effect of alienating many young people who were brought up in Christian homes who were taught evolution in their churches and have come to the conclusion that if their leaders and teachers don't believe the Bible, why should they?

This means that there will be a much more clear division between those genuinely converted believers who believe the Bible, and those religious people professing Christianity who prefer to put the Bible aside in preference to evolution. Note that the delusion comes upon "those who are perishing". According to Scripture, many in churches are not genuinely converted to Christ and are so beyond saving that they have received the delusion so that they will believe the lie and ultimately perish.

Therefore, we who believe the Bible should stand up and call out those leaders and teachers in our churches who are teaching the lie, so that as many as possible can be saved from a future without Christ.

'When the Son of Man comes will he find faith on the Earth?' Luke 18:8

 

[quietthinker]

Ok, I'm getting an idea of your objection. Thanks for answering.

As to myself, I am adamant believer in God & evolution, and don't find them at odds at all. Obviously I don't have a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. As you & I chatted earlier, if i were to have a literally-must-be-proven-by-scientific-evidence look at things, I would have chucked this entire faith thing out of the air lock.

Jane, may i ask you this ... do you get Mail in your Word program?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Jane, may i ask you this ... do you get Mail in your Word program?

Honestly, I"m not sure what you are asking about.

 

[quietthinker]

Honestly, I"m not sure what you are asking about.

I want to use this as an illustration....sooo, what do you think, do you get Mail in your Word program?

 

[DNB]

I want to use this as an illustration....sooo, what do you think, do you get Mail in your Word program?

I'm curious to see where you're going with this?
No, word processing applications, like MS Word, do not have email capabilities. ...but, MS Outlook does use MS Word as it's editor ,within the body of the email.

 

[DNB]

Rom 8:20-21 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope, (21) Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I hoped we were having a productive discussion DNB, but since you find my input so annoying let me quote from Albert Barnes' Commentary regarding the difference between the fallen and unfallen state of Creation:

Romans 8:21 From the bondage of corruption - This does not differ materially from “vanity,” Rom_8:20. It implies that this state is not a willing state, or not a condition of choice, but is one of bondage or servitude (see Rom_7:15-24); and that it is a corrupt, imperfect, perishing condition. It is one that leads to sin, and temptation, and conflict and anxiety. It is a condition often which destroys the peace, mars the happiness, dims the hope, enfeebles the faith, and weakens the love of Christians, and this is called the bondage of corruption. It is also one in which temporal death has dominion, and in the bondage of which, believers as well as unbelievers shall be held. Yet from all this bondage the children of God shall be delivered.


There is nothing unscriptural about referring to death as the last enemy of God.
1Co 15:20-26 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. (22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (24) Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

I am disappointed but not surprised that you have resorted to abuse. I forgive you but it is best we discontinue our discourse rather than it cause you to stray further in this direction.
Abusive ad hominem argument (or direct ad hominem) is associated with an attack to the character of the person carrying an argument. This kind of argument, besides usually being fallacious, is also counter productive as a proper dialogue is hard to achieve after such an attack.[18][19][20][Wkpd]

It just seemed like there was a big disconnect between us as to what we were actually talking about, and that we were having a very one-sided, and in my opinion, biased, discussion, ...or monologue rather.
For example, you had yet to explain the reasons behind your thesis against Theistic Evolution.