Did God use evolution to create life

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Surely you're sharp enough to consider the figurative nature of the word, "Day" and the considerable evidence that the word represents an "Age."

Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.

Everytime creation is the topic the days are presented as being literal days, not ages of untold millions of years.

The same school of thought denies the legitimacy of Noah and the Ark, making it to be a fairy tale. Once you start whittling down what God is able to do, there is ALOT of Bible to whittle down.

Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.

Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality

Lot's Wife... just figurative

The Red Sea Crossing....not real either

Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?

Virgin birth......impossible

Ressurection......just figurative

Eternal life.......

on and on it goes.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.

Everytime creation is the topic the days are presented as being literal days, not ages of untold millions of years.

In summing up the creation account that you have cited from Genesis 1, as part of the segue to an alternate account in Chapter 2, the Author of Genesis says in Genesis 2:4:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."

We haven't even moved more than just a few verses beyond the passage you cited and already the Bible itself contradicts your theory.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The same school of thought denies the legitimacy of Noah and the Ark, making it to be a fairy tale. Once you start whittling down what God is able to do, there is ALOT of Bible to whittle down.

We've covered this so many times it's almost ad naseum. Just as you were wrong to have worked yourself up into a "vomiting" mode because you misheard John MacArthur on the matter of "God's counsel" (and not "council") - so you have also decided to become a firebrand for another issue that you really have never studied out.

Stay cool, Bro. I'm here to help!

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.

Was there "really" a "rich man" and a "beggar named Lazarus" in Luke 16? The "rich man" character appears frequently in a number of parables in this chapter and even the broader context of Jesus' teachings at the feast in the home of the pharisee.

You blithely accept the idea that there was "really" no "rich man." And, the Lazarus we know from the Gospel of John was hardly a "beggar" since he owned a house and property. (In fact, many commentators have posited that our Lord's unnamed host in Luke 14:1 - Luke 17:10, may have been the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in John 11). Thus Jesus may have deliberately introduced the name of his host into the parable as He disputed with the other pharisees present - but that's a different topic.

The point here is that parables contain details that are REAL, though the "story" itself is not intended to be understood as "history."

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality.

You would have to concede that homosexual gang rape is an "inhospitable" act, wouldn't you? The "hospitality" that the rulers of Sodom failed to show the visitors (angels) wasn't that they didn't leave a mint on their pillows. That's the point the hand wringing liberals leave out. By "hospitality" in the ancient setting, they were supposed to protect the sojourners from violence, robbery and crime. The "men of Sodom" were guilty of even baser crimes.

And, there is geological and archeological evidence that "cities" in the ancient pattern existed in the area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. With the Dead Sea shrinking at a rather fast pace, more discoveries will certainly turn up.

But the point is, we have evidence as to a "literal" judgment befalling communities in that area. We have no evidence that all of the continents were covered by a flood of water up to 5 miles deep just 4,000 years ago. And, why didn't anyone match up the genealogies like Bishop Ussher did until he performed the feat in 1640? Why didn't the mass of Christendom already have a "date" and "age" for the world long ago? You Young Earth literalism is actually a novelty as ideas go.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Lot's Wife... just figurative

The Red Sea Crossing....not real either

Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?

Virgin birth......impossible

Ressurection......just figurative

Eternal life.......

on and on it goes.

No, "on and on" YOU go. And by the fumbling manner that you handled Genesis 1 & 2, I'd have to say that you probably don't speak for many people who have actually studied this matter.

No offense intended. But you should limit your "firebrand" comments for the issues that you're a bit more familiar with.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by pelathais

In summing up the creation account that you have cited from Genesis 1, as part of the segue to an alternate account in Chapter 2, the Author of Genesis says in Genesis 2:4:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."

We haven't even moved more than just a few verses beyond the passage you cited and already the Bible itself contradicts your theory.



We've covered this so many times it's almost ad naseum. Just as you were wrong to have worked yourself up into a "vomiting" mode because you misheard John MacArthur on the matter of "God's counsel" (and not "council") - so you have also decided to become a firebrand for another issue that you really have never studied out.

Stay cool, Bro. I'm here to help!



Was there "really" a "rich man" and a "beggar named Lazarus" in Luke 16? The "rich man" character appears frequently in a number of parables in this chapter and even the broader context of Jesus' teachings at the feast in the home of the pharisee.

You blithely accept the idea that there was "really" no "rich man." And, the Lazarus we know from the Gospel of John was hardly a "beggar" since he owned a house and property. (In fact, many commentators have posited that our Lord's unnamed host in Luke 14:1 - Luke 17:10, may have been the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in John 11. Thus Jesus may have deliberately introduced the name of his host into the parable as He disputed with the other pharisees present.



You would have to concede that homosexual gang rape is an "inhospitable" act, wouldn't you? The "hospitality" that the rulers of Sodom failed to show the visitors (angels) wasn't that they didn't leave a mint on their pillows. That's the point the hand wringing liberals leave out. By "hospitality" in the ancient setting, they were supposed to protect the sojourners. The "men of Sodom" were guilty of even baser crimes.

And, there is geological and archeological evidence that "cities" in the ancient pattern existed in the area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. With the Dead Sea shrinking at a rather fast pace, more discoveries will certainly turn up.

But the point is, we have evidence as to a "literal" judgment befalling communities in that area. We have no evidence that all of the continents were covered by a flood of water up to 5 miles deep just 6,000 years ago.



No, "on and on" YOU go. And by the fumbling manner that you handled Genesis 1 & 2, I'd have to say that you probably don't speak for many people who have actually studied this matter.

No offense intended. But you should limit your "firebrand" comments for the issues that you're a bit more familiar with.

Thanks Pel. I read his response to what I said and got brain-fried at that stubbornness and willful ignorance. I'm not even going to respond now that you trumped anything I could say by about two or three hemispheres.

[Mr. Smith]

Mr. Badejo, seriously, and I mean totally seriously, there is an opportunity here for you to consume valuable information and learn something. Just like your grace journey, there is another journey available and you can travel it if you really, really want to consume truth. It's up to you. Take what Pelathais is saying and consume it with a desire for truth. There's a college education in logistics, reason, and TRUTH from a guy like him, if you're willing to admit that you just might NOT know everything. Come on, listen to what he has to say.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Mr. Badejo, seriously, and I mean totally seriously, there is an opportunity here for you to consume valuable information and learn something. Just like your grace journey, there is another journey available and you can travel it if you really, really want to consume truth. It's up to you. Take what Pelathais is saying and consume it with a desire for truth. There's a college education in logistics, reason, and TRUTH from a guy like him, if you're willing to admit that you just might NOT know everything. Come on, listen to what he has to say.

I ALWAYS listen to what people have to say. Because I disagree doesn't mean I don't listen or study those things out myself. I like Pel, but its well documented we are completely at odds on this issue.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I ALWAYS listen to what people have to say. Because I disagree doesn't mean I don't listen or study those things out myself. I like Pel, but its well documented we are completely at odds on this issue.

You shouldn't be. Pel is right.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

You shouldn't be. Pel is right.

Jason's cool. But I think he could really be something special if he set aside this "weight."

[Jason B]

And Pel, we have already hashed out the difference between a Parable such as the rich man and Lazarus, and a literal historical event, such as the Flood. Nevertheless, you have appointed yourself the authority on all things figurative.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

And Pel, we have already hashed out the difference between a Parable such as the rich man and Lazarus, and a literal historical event, such as the Flood. Nevertheless, you have appointed yourself the authority on all things figurative.

No, I recognize the Bible's authority in this area and I am afraid to mess with that. Just take the Word for what it says. Don't try and make it say the opposite of what some atheist is saying and then call yourself an "apologist" or "defender of the Bible."

That's the pattern in which so many heresies and wacko stuff arises. Ussher ran into that problem during the English Enlightenment and made a fool of himself.

And besides, we obviously haven't "hashed out" the issue if you're still struggling with it.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.

Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.

Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality

Lot's Wife... just figurative

The Red Sea Crossing....not real either

Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?

Virgin birth......impossible

Ressurection......just figurative

Eternal life.......

on and on it goes.

Every time the word "day"is used in the Old Testament and modified by an ordinal, it means 24 hour day.


God is not flakey with words.
God didn't define 6 days here differently that the definition of the 7th day.
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For 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.


Same writer
Same bible
Same book of the bible
Same God says:

10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

If an honest godly person interprets scripture correctly, under what basis does the duration of seven days change between Genesis chapter 2 and Genesis chapter 7?

Using Darwinism to interpret scripture was not available to the OT prophets and writers.
These same folowers of Darwin say the 6 days referred to in the 10 suggestions are different days than the 7 th day which is the sabbath day.

Long-agers generally teach that Genesis 1 means something other than what it says, such as that it is theological poetry, or an allegory involving metaphorical people.