Where did life begin? (Merged)

[LouderVol]

Have you considered that there are theological issues as well for some when they considen this?

Yes. which is why I don't go around brow beating people and telling them they are going to hell if they don't believe as I do.

In discussions I believe it is fair for me to bring up my point of view.

I would also like to hear some of the issues, many I probably shared at one point, and I might be able to alleviate. and for the others I am always open to hearing new thoughts. I want to grow my faith, it is not static. I want/seek a challenge, because I believe it creates a stronger relationship with God in the end.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes. which is why I don't go around brow beating people and telling them they are going to hell if they don't believe as I do.

In discussions I believe it is fair for me to bring up my point of view.

I would also like to hear some of the issues, many I probably shared at one point, and I might be able to alleviate. and for the others I am always open to hearing new thoughts. I want to grow my faith, it is not static. I want/seek a challenge, because I believe it creates a stronger relationship with God in the end.

No. But you seem to be brow beating others for their belief in a literal creation story and healthy skepticism per some scientific claims.

Forgive me if I've attributed more condescension to your posts than intended, but there seems to have been some brow beating. I also have picked up a bit of an excluded middle fallacy--in that you seem to swerve toward a belief that we must completely trust science as the final word on all of this, or have no respect for science.

That would be a straw man.

Theologically, Paul wrote that sin entered the world, and death entered into the world as a result. Evolutionary theory proposes death as part and parcel to the process. So, you are proposing that God used death as a process of creating humanity and animal life, when a literal reading of Paul's theology seems to disallow that.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and thus true, so any scientific endeavor rightly performed will agree with scripture. Science is nothing to be feared, but embraced and celebrated.

Any place that science and scripture seem to disagree will be an error in either scriptural interpretation or science applied.

I'm not dogmatic on most, as I recognize that I am not perfect in interpretation, nor is science perfect in practice.

So, no fear of science on my part. I can have a healthy respect for science without crowning it unquestioningly. I can have a great faith in my Biblical interpretation without feeling, my interpretation to be the dogma that everyone else has to report to. (I sincerely hope and pray that the appearance of brow beating you hasn't come from me.)

:hi:

 

[LouderVol]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigO95 View Post
What you are saying is nowhere to be found in the Bible. You are trying put a theory into the Bible and trying to make it say something the Bible plainly does not teach.



Ok,

but, the premise behind (the theory of) "evolution" is that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures (as the drawings show), and, in-short, this is generally why Christians deny the plausibility of the theory of "evolution" in general (i.e we, in general, reject the "scientific" notion behind the theory that God did not create mankind on Day 6 / that God did not create mankind on another, literally-different day than the literal-day He created the animals/ apes and other mammals, etc).

not sure if I got the complete gist of your point, but lets see if I can answer.

the way I see it is over a time period. Evolution works over time. To say we evolved from an ape like creature is as short sited as saying the car is directly related to the first wheel made by man kind. on a grand scale its true. but there were many many steps in the way that makes it two completely separate things. Even with "ape like" creatures, they were still our direct ancestors, whatever form they took, they just weren't fully human ,yet. think a sculpture or painting being made. if you look half way it looks nothing like the finished product, but it is still inherently that item, it just doesn't have the beauty of the finishing touches (God)

I don't believe the 6 days were days. Not sure if you were agreeing with this or not. In my world when humans were created in the bible it was along with all the animals. Evolution agrees with this. Just as we were evolving all the animals were too. So as we "emerged" from the evolutionary soup, so did the animals we see around us. so in that sense we were created at the same time as the animals. so there isn't an inherent disagreement there (imo).

let me know if that helps explain my position, I realize it may not be answering your questions.

 

[LouderVol]

If God wanted to use evolution and let us know he used evolution, don't you think that he would have said something in his word?

lol. how? he doesn't break down atoms and how they work. should we not know about them either?

again, my point is that we don't need to know the method God used to still give credit to God. Essentially I am tying my faith to God the entity rather than what I perceive as his actions. to me it sounds like some level of your belief in God is tied to creation being exactly like the bible. For me, my belief in God is only tied to the fact that he created life (we exist from a big bowl of soup). if its evolution, the creation story, space alien storks dropping us off, doesn't matter to me. God created us, that is enough for me.

granted what I perceive influences what I think of as God but there it is.

 

[LouderVol]

No. But you seem to be brow beating others for their belief in a literal creation story and healthy skepticism per some scientific claims.

Forgive me if I've attributed more condescension to your posts than intended, but there seems to have been some brow beating. I also have picked up a bit of an excluded middle fallacy--in that you seem to swerve toward a belief that we must completely trust science as the final word on all of this, or have no respect for science.

That would be a straw man.

Theologically, Paul wrote that sin entered the world, and death entered into the world as a result. Evolutionary theory proposes death as part and parcel to the process. So, you are proposing that God used death as a process of creating humanity and animal life, when a literal reading of Paul's theology seems to disallow that.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and thus true, so any scientific endeavor rightly performed will agree with scripture. Science is nothing to be feared, but embraced and celebrated.

Any place that science and scripture seem to disagree will be an error in either scriptural interpretation or science applied.

I'm not dogmatic on most, as I recognize that I am not perfect in interpretation, nor is science perfect in practice.

So, no fear of science on my part. I can have a healthy respect for science without crowning it unquestioningly. I can have a great faith in my Biblical interpretation without feeling, my interpretation to be the dogma that everyone else has to report to. (I sincerely hope and pray that the appearance of brow beating you hasn't come from me.)

:hi:

any brow beating by me is hopefully to get people to accept "and" vs "or". admittedly once defensive, or in defending my ideals, I am going to present ideas that differ. that is the reason for the conversations. hopefully I have not tied my beliefs to saying that this is how you have to get to heaven or anything of the sort, if I have that is wrong of me and I apologize. but at the heart of the matter O95 is trying to get me to open up to his beliefs, is it wrong to ask him to do the same? maybe I just need to throw in a lot more "imo"s but it gets tedious.

I agree. science isn't the end all be all. that is God.

as far as I know besides adam and eve (constructs) there are only two beings who entered this world without original sin. Mary (may just be a Catholic thing) and Jesus (although the reasoning for Mary does raise some interesting questions about it going back further). Jesus is Jesus. But Mary still died without the burden of original sin. or at least she has disappeared from the annals of history. so in my beliefs (again may just be the Catholic) one can still die without original sin.

now onto the need of death in evolution vs God's design. I don't believe earth is heaven, I don't believe it was intended to be. I believe God always intended on us joining him in another "realm" that our physical bodies couldn't follow. With my beliefs of heaven as they are only a very few beings are there physically, and I don't think that was a change in God. so yes I believe God intended us to face a physical death from the start, even without original sin. the garden of Eden wasn't infinite, it would have filled eventually, even the world is filling up now, how much worse would it be if we didn't die?

plants and animals die, and we were brought about with the same process as them and tied to the same world as them and to the same natural processes as them. we have God's divine gift to be different/above them. but i don't think that excludes death. imo. we need to eat and drink, if we wouldn't die, why would we need to eat and drink? Pretty sure Adam and Eve were assumed to eat and drink before the whole apple thing. if not that makes the whole EATING an apple thing even more complicated than it being forbidden fruit. imo

lastly, for now and to keep this from being too too long, I think we need death to appreciate God as he wanted with free will. The angels don't die*, but don't have free will to not love God. God wants us to choose to love him. without death that is an empty thing. God gave us struggle and suffering and death so that our love could be true. We don't need a physical body to have a relationship with God that lasts forever. our time here on earth is short, incredibly short in God's eyes, heaven is eternal. God gets our love eternally whether or not our physical form dies. *if we choose to love him. so unless you believe heaven became a thing only after original sin I would ask what was the intention there, and how/if were we to join him physically?

 

[LouderVol]

^imo

 

[Vol8188]

If God wanted to use evolution and let us know he used evolution, don't you think that he would have said something in his word?

So god is only capable of using instruments explicitly stated within the Bible? Surely you don't believe that.

Since evolution is completely irrelevant to the doctorine idk why you believe god would've added "o by the way, the things I made change some".

 

[BigO95]

not sure if I got the complete gist of your point, but lets see if I can answer.

the way I see it is over a time period. Evolution works over time. To say we evolved from an ape like creature is as short sited as saying the car is directly related to the first wheel made by man kind. on a grand scale its true. but there were many many steps in the way that makes it two completely separate things. Even with "ape like" creatures, they were still our direct ancestors, whatever form they took, they just weren't fully human ,yet. think a sculpture or painting being made. if you look half way it looks nothing like the finished product, but it is still inherently that item, it just doesn't have the beauty of the finishing touches (God)

I don't believe the 6 days were days. Not sure if you were agreeing with this or not. In my world when humans were created in the bible it was along with all the animals. Evolution agrees with this. Just as we were evolving all the animals were too. So as we "emerged" from the evolutionary soup, so did the animals we see around us. so in that sense we were created at the same time as the animals. so there isn't an inherent disagreement there (imo).

let me know if that helps explain my position, I realize it may not be answering your questions.

LV, you are a greater person of faith than I am. It would take way more faith to believe that story than Gods account in Genesis.😀

 

[Orangeslice13]

Hmm. Ok,

1) which translation actually says it as you've written it, as "In the beginning was the saying(action word) and the saying was with G-d and the saying was Devine"

and

2) you're using some English word (in noun form) which you're spelling as "Devine" which I'm not sure is even a proper English word.

Just to be sure, the English definition of "devine" (and I suppose D or d) is: "a frequent misspelling of divine."

Please send me your definition and source of and English word "Devine" (/ "devine").

Otherwise, maybe that was an oversite/mispelling based on phonetics; then to be clear,

if you're saying the English word/translated as "Devine" equals the word "God" of the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (of Matt 22:31-32), then we know WHO we're referring to in John 1, and therefore,

it could just as easily read (as it does in several translations):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (NIV) or "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (KJV).

Also, "Theos and Ton Theon" seem to refer to "the creator" of the universe (i.e. God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- the father of the Hebrew nation / "the Word (Jesus is the Word) was God" > right back to what John is saying, written in English).

No need to respond this morning (please wait until you have a moment later, if you'd like).

1) I actually don’t waste time trying to compile a list of who agrees with me and who doesn’t. I generally listen to others research and decide what I think. Remember that I also spend a good deal of time discussing this from the opposite point of view with people who completely reject Yeshua/Jesus as Messiah. I’m sure that affects my thinking but unlike them who I’m trying to convert, I’m not trying to convert you. My feelings are if you understand sin/grace and it’s need we’re Good. Ithers thinking that the father and Son are the exact same being and me believing one has begotten the other who does the will of the father isn’t a salvation issue. G-d says the Son is worthy and I believe him.

2) I’m severely dyslexic. My spellin on here is often terrible. I mostly talk to text as that seems to help. Sometimes words get added to the list because I use them misspelled so often.
As far as Theos vs Ton Theon there are tons of opinions to read as to what they mean and why they were both used. I feel every believer should spend time on that. If nothing else it will help solidify the relationship between Father and Son. That relationship of old and represented in the OT as the angle of the lord. The angle of the lord has G-ds name in him. He absolutely could be the agent G-d used for creation. I believe the scriptures clearly teach this. (Both old and new).
Again I’m not trying to win points or convince anyone I’m right and their wrong.


To further elaborate on an earlier question many of the Jews I know see the angle of the lord as divinity that is of YHWH (made sure I got it right that time) and they expect him to come and fulfill prophecy. They just think it wasn’t Yeshua/Jesus and they’re still looking for his arrival.

 

[midnight orange]

If God wanted to use evolution and let us know he used evolution, don't you think that he would have said something in his word?

What did he say about using physics to fly an airplane?

 

[LouderVol]

LV, you are a greater person of faith than I am. It would take way more faith to believe that story than Gods account in Genesis.😀

I don't know about that. but thanks I think.

 

[BigO95]

lol. how? he doesn't break down atoms and how they work. should we not know about them either?

again, my point is that we don't need to know the method God used to still give credit to God. Essentially I am tying my faith to God the entity rather than what I perceive as his actions. to me it sounds like some level of your belief in God is tied to creation being exactly like the bible. For me, my belief in God is only tied to the fact that he created life (we exist from a big bowl of soup). if its evolution, the creation story, space alien storks dropping us off, doesn't matter to me. God created us, that is enough for me.

granted what I perceive influences what I think of as God but there it is.

I believe In the integrity of words that are either spoken or written to be exactly what they are saying. Plain easy literature, plain talk is easily understood.
God is not the author of confusion. You are saying a different story all together than what it actually says. That is my point.
You cannot get the theory of evolution from the Bible. It simply does not teach such.
I am not trying to be rude, but you are telling another story than God does. You have the right to believe it if you want but I stand firm that the Bible teaches no such thing. And I do have a very good appreciation for science, just not fairy tales.

 

[Orangeslice13]

What did he say about using physics to fly an airplane?

Can we figure out how he started life first?

 

[LouderVol]

I believe In the integrity of words that are either spoken or written to be exactly what they are saying. Plain easy literature, plain talk is easily understood.
God is not the author of confusion. You are saying a different story all together than what it actually says. That is my point.
You cannot get the theory of evolution from the Bible. It simply does not teach such.
I am not trying to be rude, but you are telling another story than God does. You have the right to believe it if you want but I stand firm that the Bible teaches no such thing. And I do have a very good appreciation for science, just not fairy tales.

I don't think I am telling a different story. My story has more words is all. and its not to change the intent or the story itself. again to me it boils down to God made life and the universe. Do you agree with that?

everything else is window dressing imo.

 

[BigO95]

So god is only capable of using instruments explicitly stated within the Bible? Surely you don't believe that.

Since evolution is completely irrelevant to the doctorine idk why you believe god would've added "o by the way, the things I made change some".

I am saying that God did just fine with the Bible explaining the creation account.
God has not given us every little situation in the Bible, but he did give us many good principles that apply for all areas of life.
Evolution makes many claims against basic biblical theology. It puts death before Adams sin which opens a very big can of worms. Many doctrines would be effected by believing evolution.

 

[BigO95]

I don't think I am telling a different story. My story has more words is all. and its not to change the intent or the story itself. again to me it boils down to God made life and the universe. Do you agree with that?

everything else is window dressing imo.

God did make life and the universe, but adding to the Bible is a very serious offense with God. I lovingly warn you that, that is a dangerous road to travel down. Read the last few verses of the Bible at least in the KJV.

 

[BigO95]

Yes. which is why I don't go around brow beating people and telling them they are going to hell if they don't believe as I do.

In discussions I believe it is fair for me to bring up my point of view.

I would also like to hear some of the issues, many I probably shared at one point, and I might be able to alleviate. and for the others I am always open to hearing new thoughts. I want to grow my faith, it is not static. I want/seek a challenge, because I believe it creates a stronger relationship with God in the end.

There are many things one can be wrong about and go to heaven, but there are some doctrines that are a must.

 

[BigO95]

What did he say about using physics to fly an airplane?

Nothing as far as I know, but it has very plain teaching about creation.

 

[LouderVol]

God did make life and the universe, but adding to the Bible is a very serious offense with God. I lovingly warn you that, that is a dangerous road to travel down. Read the last few verses of the Bible at least in the KJV.

it is said that time moves differently for God than it does for us. a day to him is more than a life time to us. could that not be the case here? could those days of creation been more or less to us than it was to God?

Psalm 90:4"“For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

Second Peter 3:8 says something similar.

 

[BigO95]

it is said that time moves differently for God than it does for us. a day to him is more than a life time to us. could that not be the case here? could those days of creation been more or less to us than it was to God?

Psalm 90:4"“For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

Second Peter 3:8 says something similar.

I have looked long and hard at that argument, but it seems like I always end up at the same place. God made it very easy to just take his word at face value. I don't have to have any other sources for me to believe the Bible.
I have looked at and very much have considered the scriptures that you referred to in the light that you put them in and I do understand that God works in time different than we do. But I have come to the same conclusion, that the Bible stands just fine as written.
God gave us a very easy to be understood time reference when he mentioned the morning and evening. Sometimes we stumble at the simplicity of the Bible.

 

[BigO95]

LV, I have no problem understanding what you are saying but I just can't agree with that being part of the teaching of the Bible.
I hope that you understand my point of view. I am not trying to be a knucklehead to you. I just simply in good conscience agree with your theology.
And by the way, more than anything, I want to see everyone in heaven some day, including you.

 

[LouderVol]

I have looked long and hard at that argument, but it seems like I always end up at the same place. God made it very easy to just take his word at face value. I don't have to have any other sources for me to believe the Bible.
I have looked at and very much have considered the scriptures that you referred to in the light that you put them in and I do understand that God works in time different than we do. But I have come to the same conclusion, that the Bible stands just fine as written.
God gave us a very easy to be understood time reference when he mentioned the morning and evening. Sometimes we stumble at the simplicity of the Bible.

so you are just glossing over those parts of the bible that don't fit your narrative. God would have had to been describing the events of creation, man wasn't around to observe it. those days would have been on God's scale, not ours.

the morning and evening thing is something I would like to know the Hebrew for and understand if that was a way of saying "24 hours" or if it only generally meant the period of time a person is generally awake during a 24 hour period.

your simple reading of it still has many simple holes in it. or operates under the assumption that the rest of the bible provides, yet when the Bible might provide another interpretation it just gets looked over. it doesn't seem incredibly consistent in and of itself, to me.

 

[UT-Rex]

As far as Theos vs Ton Theon there are tons of opinions to read as to what they mean and why they were both used. I feel every believer should spend time on that. If nothing else it will help solidify the relationship between Father and Son.

As you initially said it could "just as easily be translated "In the beginning was the saying(action word) and the saying was with G-d and the saying was Devine"", then

I was merely wondering your reasoning as to why (it could be translated that way, as no modern day translation of John 1:1, that I know of, uses this English word "Devine"/"Divine" in that context of the Greek word Theos / Θεὸ&#962.

Yes, there is also Theon / Θεόν (thanks for point this out, as I had forgotten about these 2-different Greek words used in this passage).

1) Theon / Θεόν -- also used in Matt 15:31, "and they glorified the God of Israel"

2) Theos / Θεὸς -- also used (twice) in Matt 22:32, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

3) and then in the preceding verse, Matt 22:31, there is at least a 3rd way, as Theou / Θεοῦ, "have you not read what God said to you, ... ."

My concern, is that some persons today substitute "Divine" in a way which does not / so as to not recognize/acknowledge the importance of what God said, as "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (in the context of "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him", 1 Jn 4:9).

 

[LouderVol]

LV, I have no problem understanding what you are saying but I just can't agree with that being part of the teaching of the Bible.
I hope that you understand my point of view. I am not trying to be a knucklehead to you. I just simply in good conscience agree with your theology.
And by the way, more than anything, I want to see everyone in heaven some day, including you.

i definitely agree with the last.

I enjoy these discussions. I enjoy thinking about my faith and beliefs which is why I engage people who don't agree with me. it allows my faith to be on solid ground even in times of personal struggle, my faith doesn't waver.

even when I say I disagree with someone or bring up different points doesn't mean I believe they are wrong in a absolute type of way (won't get to heaven). if thats the case I would say so, hopefully I haven't here.

 

[BigO95]

so you are just glossing over those parts of the bible that don't fit your narrative. God would have had to been describing the events of creation, man wasn't around to observe it. those days would have been on God's scale, not ours.

the morning and evening thing is something I would like to know the Hebrew for and understand if that was a way of saying "24 hours" or if it only generally meant the period of time a person is generally awake during a 24 hour period.

your simple reading of it still has many simple holes in it. or operates under the assumption that the rest of the bible provides, yet when the Bible might provide another interpretation it just gets looked over. it doesn't seem incredibly consistent in and of itself, to me.

Would you be kind enough to give me an example of what you just described?