Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Did He form Eve from one of Adam's ribs?

How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.

The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an Easy Bake Oven kit.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Instead of saying it isn't true, they use words like poetic, metaphor, parable and figurative.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

Scroll back further and respond to some of the questions and posts I directed to you before you take up anything new or else I'm going to call you a "Ninny."

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I don't quite follow what you are saying, asking or telling me what I believe here.

I believe that all human beings are literally descended from one single breeding pair as described in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. The accounts of creation in Genesis are a compilation of different original works that were composed by Hebrew writers during the pre-Exilic Kingdom period of Israel's history. These accounts were redacted (compiled together with a supporting narrative) in the time of Ezra the Scribe as an etiology for the claims to the land that the returning Exiles were seeking to assert.

"Adam" can be a "metaphoric term for humanity" (Psalm 8:4, Hebrew = "what is 'adam' that thou art mindful of him...?"). However, modern genetic studies have clearly proven that all of the human race alive today (and alive in antiquity) descended from a single breeding pair of "parents.' Literally, as in "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare..."

That's how you and I ultimately got here, Brother.

Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I realize that "coadie" has now shifted into that gear that ultimately gets him banned from Christian and Apostolic forums. Sad.

But he is following the same pattern of deception that folks like Arlo Moehlenpah, Steve and Dana Grohman, Ken Ham, the currently incarcerated fraud "Dr Dino" Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and the now anonymous leaders of the "Institute for Creation Research." (Why the current anonymity, dudes?)

They just attempt to fill up the public discourse with unsupportable and ridiculous assertions. They will never respond to honest questions. If you try to "hold their feet to the fire" and insist upon a dialog - they act just like coadie and bust a vein.

Again, why do otherwise intelligent Oneness people even give any credence to this fraud?

Arlo? Steve? Why do you perpetrate such a fraud on Apostolic people?

I never get an answer. It's all just like Lee Stoneking's fraudulent claims to have earned a "Doctorate." You call them on it - you even call them on the phone and send email. No response at all to the charges of "fraud." What do these guys really know that they aren't telling?

When did you talk to any of those people? I googled them

None are atheists and none appear to buy into Darwinism. That means you think they are inferiior to you.
On the now shuttered Dawkins discussion boards, the atheists/evolutionists had a cocky arrogance that is like Dawkins.
Dawkins won't debate in public.

I can't recall someone evangelizing for evolution that doesn't claim to be intellectually superior.
In addition to the monster egos, why are they so insecure in regards to schools commenting on creation in class?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.

The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an Easy Bake Oven kit.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!

This is cherry picking the bible.
Hugh Ross is a heavy duty Old earth advocate.

On a tape Dr. Ross says, "Science and the Bible totally agree concerning the initial condition of planet earth, that the earth began with an atmosphere dominated by ammonia and methane." Where does the Bible say that?

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!

The creation accounts (there are two distinct though related accounts) predate the Exile. These accounts along with many other inspired Hebrew literary works, which includes the Law of Moses, were collected together by the Sopherim (scribes) lead by Ezra the Scribe (Sopher - Ezra 7:1-6) in the post Exile period (around 444 BC).

Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

When did you talk to any of those people? I googled them

None are atheists and none appear to buy into Darwinism. That means you think they are inferiior to you.
On the now shuttered Dawkins discussion boards, the atheists/evolutionists had a cocky arrogance that is like Dawkins.
Dawkins won't debate in public.

I can't recall someone evangelizing for evolution that doesn't claim to be intellectually superior.
In addition to the monster egos, why are they so insecure in regards to schools commenting on creation in class?

Ninny.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...&postcount=112

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.

The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an

.

So you know the intentions of the scripture?

Toss in an easy bake oven for special effects.

Sounds like Joseph Smith when he re wrote genesis. He knew what God had intended.
So there was no Literal Garden of Eden.
No literal fall of man.
No killing by cain.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

When people go for evolution theory, they now have the authority to call this information as false.

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent says to not take this litterally.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

They reject the curse. You can do or eat anything that feels good or tastes good. ( Pel says it wasn't intended to be understood literally)

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The creation accounts (there are two distinct though related accounts) predate the Exile. These accounts along with many other inspired Hebrew literary works, which includes the Law of Moses, were collected together by the Sopherim (scribes) lead by Ezra the Scribe (Sopher - Ezra 7:1-6) in the post Exile period (around 444 BC).

Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.

Give us a reason to take your assertions literally.


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:

They make up that death was around but not really death death.