Creation or evolution?

RThomas

Senior Member
No transitional fossils?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Goose, those are bogus arguments against evolution. Those same arguments could be used against the bible. Racism, genocide, ect. The bible has been used to justify a host of attrocities. Does that then mean the bible is false??

Again, at best, creationists can only attempt to discredit evolution. I'm still waiting for solid evidence of creationism.
 
Last edited:

Goose

Senior Member
Jesus is not a created Being

I think the answer of the trinity satisfies your question. My understanding of scripture shows that Jesus was not created, but is eternal. Jesus was present at the beginning with the Father:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." - John 1:1-3 (NKJ)

To correctly identify "the Word" look to verse 14 - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 (NKJ) This identifies "the Word" as Jesus Christ.

So, not only was Jesus present at creation, but everything that was created was done so "through Him, and without Him nothing was made . . ."

Goose ::;
 
Goose
 

RThomas

Senior Member
Who is "us" and "our"?
JB,
As you've seen, the most common answer you will receive from fundamentalists Christians is "the father, son, and holy ghost." But, the actual answer is that the early writers of the bible were not monotheistic. Yahweh was only one of many gods. So, the "us" and "we" refer to gods.
Also notice how there are actually two different creation accounts. The second starts at Genesis 2:4. They are different in several aspects, namely in the order of creation and how one refers to God as "God" and the second as "Lord God". (not related to your question, I've just always been interested in the creation accounts).
 

Goose

Senior Member
The Hebraic word used in the Gen. 2 creation account is "hwhy" - or "Jehovah" - a singular noun identifying the God of the Jews in the Old Testament.

The writer of Genesis wrote that one god, namely Jehovah, created the world.

Most Jewish and Christian scholars agree that Moses authored Genesis, as well as the entire pentatuech.

He also uses this term during identifying Jehovah as the One who sent the plagues against the Egyptians, as the One who initiated the exodus, and as the One who gave the Law to the Jews. There's no interaction between Moses and any other god but Jehovah in scripture. So, I would argue the the early Bible writer (singular) was monotheistic.

Goose
 

HuntinTom

Retired Moderator
Your Guys are Doing a Very Commendable Job in Your Diologue...

Good thread Randy, and good replies all...
 

RThomas

Senior Member
Most Jewish and Christian scholars agree that Moses authored Genesis, as well as the entire pentatuech.
I know of no reliable biblical scholars who posit that Moses was the sole author of Genesis. There is no credible evidence to support this view. The fact is is that Genesis, as well as the entire bible, had multiple authors. And, even those stories were passed down through verbal tradition before finally being written down by various authors (and then copied and recopied).
Sorry to get off subject (as tends to happen with religious debate).
 

RThomas

Senior Member
Oh, I also meant to piont out, Goose, that you failed to mention Elohim- the plural form for god/gods, which contradicts the singular form you used in your post. Anyway, anyone who is really interested in learning more about the new testament authors should check out "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman" (I have copy if you need to borrow one ;) ).

ok, ok, back to evolution now...
 

JBowers

Senior Member
Goose said:
I think the answer of the trinity satisfies your question. My understanding of scripture shows that Jesus was not created, but is eternal. Jesus was present at the beginning with the Father:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." - John 1:1-3 (NKJ)

To correctly identify "the Word" look to verse 14 - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 (NKJ) This identifies "the Word" as Jesus Christ.

So, not only was Jesus present at creation, but everything that was created was done so "through Him, and without Him nothing was made . . ."

Goose ::;
As I previously stated, the Trinity is not satisfactory for me.

Jesus was not a created being? This contradicts the written accounts of the Bible: Jesus was conceived and created by God, grew in Mary's womb, Mary gave birth to him, he was flesh and he died like all created beings. He lived of the flesh and was tempted by the materialistic desires of the flesh. He was a created being or do you not believe that part of the Bible.

So, by one interpretation, there were two Gods at the beginning: God and Jesus?

And the last sentence of your quote: if so, then that would include by whatever process He would have used to make such possibly including and not limited to evolution?

I applaud Throwback for providing an answer without quoting the Bible out of context. I understand the need to do so; however, I also recognize that anyone can do so to support almost any position (e.g. life begins at conception, life begins at birth, stoning our children, support for the death penalty, opposition to the death penalty, etc, etc, etc.). I have already expressed that I am not one who considers the Bible to be inerrant.
 

JBowers

Senior Member
HuntinTom said:
Good thread Randy, and good replies all...
Amen. I am really enjoying the exercise in thinking this thread is requiring. I am understanding more becuase of it. Thus far, I am suprised by the civility of the thread - not what I expected.
 

GeauxLSU

Senior Member
Whoa! God evolved?

JBowers said:
Jesus was not a created being? This contradicts the written accounts of the Bible: Jesus was conceived and created by God, grew in Mary's womb, Mary gave birth to him, he was flesh and he died like all created beings. He lived of the flesh and was tempted by the materialistic desires of the flesh. He was a created being or do you not believe that part of the Bible.
JB,
You are obviously talking about Jesus the MAN. Of course he was created MAN, but Jesus DIVINE has always existed just as he does now. Jesus the MAN does not exist now but that of course does not mean Jesus DIVINE does not now exist. The spiritual Jesus existed prior to becoming man and just as has always the Holy Spirit. The brief human incarnation of Jesus, though obviously central and critical to our Christian belief, has nothing to do with his existence in spiritual form prior or since that incarnation. The trinity has always existed. The Trinity (God), has not 'evolved' just the earth's lifeforms. ;)
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
 
JB, I think you have lost it man. Your nuts. :bounce:

RT, what have you been smokin. ::huh:

How was that GeauxLSU.

OK just kiddin. I agree with HuntinTom, this has been a great discussion, debate, whatever.
 

PWalls

Senior Member
Great discussion.

I still hold firm that one day we will all know the truth.

Talked to my pastor and he says that you can't believe or take literal some parts of the bible and not all of it. Now, having said that, I have some serious research (thanks for all the links by the way) and some soul searching and praying to do.
 
man, have I been missin' out!!!! Been unable to log in for over a week, and I see that there's been some great discussion on here and in other threads.

I'll read through some of the last pages and see what each of you have posted...

Bandy
 
I'd like to ask a question....

What is the 'simplest' cell that we know of? Or, better yet, what would be the minimum parts required in that first self-replicating cell?

Bandy
 
E

Etter1

Guest
The first replicating cell theoretically used rna as it's genetic code. It was a very simple chemoautotrophic cell. Meaning it makes it's own food by breaking down chemicals like those bacteria found at hydrothermal vents. Scientists have created something similar to this in labs using only the chemicals found on early earth before it was oxygenated by cyanobacteria.
 
This is 'theoretical' and assumed. Are we calling the bacteria near these Hydrothermal vents 'simple'? If so, then surely they couldn't have more than a few parts....right?

Bandy
 
E

Etter1

Guest
No, the first beginnings of a cell were incredibly simple while those on hydrothermal vents are complex. I was simply referring to their mode of nutrition. The very first thing scientists believe led to living cells were tiny groups of amino acids called microspheres. These can be easily created in a lab. They can sometimes replicate themselves and use enzymes to break down protenoids. They often form long chains or circular clumps. They were not alive but due to the fact that they resemble bacterial cells so much, scientists believe that they could have been the very first step towards life.
 
Top