-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You’re acting like I have been hiding something. My posts on this thread, and many others is very clear. Genesis 1-11 is not wrote in a manner to be taken literally. It’s wrote in a very ahistorical, mythological manner just like Revelation. It skips over 2,500 years of history in a few chapters and does that no where else in the entire bible. Genesis 1-11 is clearly not meant to be interpreted literally, and neither is the hyperlinks shot back at it. As a disciple of Christ and a seeker of truth my only motive is to harmonize theology with science and to expose the false teachings of literalist who reject true theology and true science for a weird position of interpretation.
What is ironic is that what the Churches are doing too with their rainbow interpretation
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: Gen 9:14
Apparently it hasn't come to pass for you since you are not aware that the LORD had already brought a cloud over the earth before the days of Noah?
You have read where it is written, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" or else you wouldn't have read where the LORD said "when I made the cloud the garment of it and the darkness a swaddlingband for it. "
But is it written that you shall see the bow in the cloud?
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. Genesis 9:16
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: Isa 66:1
However, if not for the bow that the LORD set in the cloud then the multicolored band that appears in the sky as a result of light refraction would not not even curve.
While the ability to view the refracted light in the sky depends upon certain conditions to be present before it can even be seen whenever the LORD looks upon the earth, but then again that is what is written that when it comes to pass that a cloud is brought over the earth that the bow shall be seen in that cloud in perpetuity since the covenant is for perpetual generations.
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: Gen 9:14
Apparently it hasn't come to pass for you since you are not aware that the LORD had already brought a cloud over the earth before the days of Noah?
You have read where it is written, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" or else you wouldn't have read where the LORD said "when I made the cloud the garment of it and the darkness a swaddlingband for it. "
But is it written that you shall see the bow in the cloud?
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. Genesis 9:16
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: Isa 66:1
However, if not for the bow that the LORD set in the cloud then the multicolored band that appears in the sky as a result of light refraction would not not even curve.
While the ability to view the refracted light in the sky depends upon certain conditions to be present before it can even be seen whenever the LORD looks upon the earth, but then again that is what is written that when it comes to pass that a cloud is brought over the earth that the bow shall be seen in that cloud in perpetuity since the covenant is for perpetual generations.
F
Well that is all a mystery to me. I simply do not know. But I have faith in the Bible. What science is saying hydrogen and helium got to a big bang and those 2 elements added up to all matter we know today.
A creator taking genetic fabric to create another gene pool sounds more logical to me. Meaning taking Adams rib to create Eve. There is simply a lot of text not in scripture that would explain the details on how these events took place. Thus creating holes while we make leaps through time, leaving questions behind.
Am I fair to say you take some scientific answers as “real” when it comes to our origins? Or am I reading you wrong in this one? Things like evolution through mutation and pan spermia?
I really don’t see how God clearly used evolution. He created seacreatures, then birds, then mammals then humans to watch over it all. But given we have fallen for lies as evolution we completely forgot what a magical gift we were granted.
A creator taking genetic fabric to create another gene pool sounds more logical to me. Meaning taking Adams rib to create Eve. There is simply a lot of text not in scripture that would explain the details on how these events took place. Thus creating holes while we make leaps through time, leaving questions behind.
Am I fair to say you take some scientific answers as “real” when it comes to our origins? Or am I reading you wrong in this one? Things like evolution through mutation and pan spermia?
I really don’t see how God clearly used evolution. He created seacreatures, then birds, then mammals then humans to watch over it all. But given we have fallen for lies as evolution we completely forgot what a magical gift we were granted.
F
I did and it made me disgust science when it comes to the theory of evolution
You would be suprised to find out how much I truly know about this theory and the history behind it. Meaning the men surrounding this idea and how it’s been corrupted.
The actual theory of evolution is because of Alfred Russell Wallace. He discoverd natural selection and Darwin stole that idea to overcome his writersblock leading up to “the origines of species”. We can only give Darwin credit for social Darwinism.
You would be suprised to find out how much I truly know about this theory and the history behind it. Meaning the men surrounding this idea and how it’s been corrupted.
The actual theory of evolution is because of Alfred Russell Wallace. He discoverd natural selection and Darwin stole that idea to overcome his writersblock leading up to “the origines of species”. We can only give Darwin credit for social Darwinism.
F
I’m sorry bro, not myself lately 
Well that is what we see. We can take 2 different genetic variations and if they are interbreedable (sorry for that word lol) get a new genetic variation out of that.
We see with dogs for instance that evolution through selection is not caused by mutations but by interbreeding. This happens in ONE generation without needing millions of years.
Since “99” procent of earths bio diversity that ever existed has already gone extinct, it is fair to say we had different genepools being caused by interbreeding in the past.
chickens we eat today are selected out and breeded out of a specific genepool too and grow faster then any species in nature.
In nature genetic codes are only isolated through genetic drift, but that is a different story then natural selection. Those are practicly opposites.
Well that is what we see. We can take 2 different genetic variations and if they are interbreedable (sorry for that word lol) get a new genetic variation out of that.
We see with dogs for instance that evolution through selection is not caused by mutations but by interbreeding. This happens in ONE generation without needing millions of years.
Since “99” procent of earths bio diversity that ever existed has already gone extinct, it is fair to say we had different genepools being caused by interbreeding in the past.
chickens we eat today are selected out and breeded out of a specific genepool too and grow faster then any species in nature.
In nature genetic codes are only isolated through genetic drift, but that is a different story then natural selection. Those are practicly opposites.
-
1
- Show all
F
I have and though there is many interesting stuff out there. Many have fallen for lies and rather look good in a crowd lying then be fooled with the truth.
An honest scientist will tell you we do not know where we came from. Science was wrong in her theories all the time. But some men in suits telling how people should behave have convinced you how?
Which peer reviewed paper out of those thousands was the most profound to you?
An honest scientist will tell you we do not know where we came from. Science was wrong in her theories all the time. But some men in suits telling how people should behave have convinced you how?
Which peer reviewed paper out of those thousands was the most profound to you?
That’s not accurate. Darwin did not steal the ideas. He was already independently working on it. He ran into many problems along the way including ships sinking and having to almost start over from the beginning.
He made very good observations. Even down to considering spiders use electricity to fly through the sky. Which they do.
Since then we’ve had thousands of scientists from every culture, race, faith, and nationality focus on specific areas of topic within dozens of scientific friends and they all support evolution.
He made very good observations. Even down to considering spiders use electricity to fly through the sky. Which they do.
Since then we’ve had thousands of scientists from every culture, race, faith, and nationality focus on specific areas of topic within dozens of scientific friends and they all support evolution.
F
Yes and no. Darwin was working on his own theories yes. But he got into a writersblock until he was confronted with Alfred Russell Wallaces writings on natural selection.
Darwin was indeed working on his own ideas but did so in a fashion which is to be labeled as social Darwinism. Darwin was more into human behaviour. Later in his book how species originated he used actual science to mix it with his ideas. Thus the actual science coming from Alfred Rusell Wallace and all the other mumbo jumbo making it psuedoscience of Darwin. You do know how Darwin looked at the evolution of wild tribes apart from the modern man aka whites? Darwin had it wrong all the time and if we would hear some speeches of him today he would be banned for hatespeech for sure!
Darwin was indeed working on his own ideas but did so in a fashion which is to be labeled as social Darwinism. Darwin was more into human behaviour. Later in his book how species originated he used actual science to mix it with his ideas. Thus the actual science coming from Alfred Rusell Wallace and all the other mumbo jumbo making it psuedoscience of Darwin. You do know how Darwin looked at the evolution of wild tribes apart from the modern man aka whites? Darwin had it wrong all the time and if we would hear some speeches of him today he would be banned for hatespeech for sure!
I assume you're genuine because I used to be in a similar position, striking out at literal interpretations in order to maintain faith.
But something's going to give eventually. All your escape hypotheses, all the ways you distort both evolutionary science and theology to make them compatible, all of it. If you're honest you'll come to a point where one of them has to be discarded in favor of the other because they rely on different authorities.
So the question is, are you going to trust God and His word, or are you going to trust men? I know my answer.
God be true, and every man a liar.
But something's going to give eventually. All your escape hypotheses, all the ways you distort both evolutionary science and theology to make them compatible, all of it. If you're honest you'll come to a point where one of them has to be discarded in favor of the other because they rely on different authorities.
So the question is, are you going to trust God and His word, or are you going to trust men? I know my answer.
God be true, and every man a liar.
Which paper was the most profound to me would be one about passionflowers and and butterflies and the development of mimicry. The paper about soft tissue in the T. rex was really cool. The evolution of fruit of the pawpaw trees related to the consumption of the mega fauna like the giant American ground sloth was really neat. The papers on the genetic influence of Homo neanderthalensis on early H. sapiens in Eastern Europe vs albinism resulting in the modern “ European” was very neat. But my favorite is definitely papers by Estefania Fernandez.
I’m not in the same position as you. Even without the theory of evolution, disregarding it completely, contextual analysis of genesis 1-11 shows that it’s not literal history. It’s a mythology. Same as revelation is a end times mythology. It’s set up very clearly as an ancient Mesopotamian creation myth. The purpose of the story is not to tell history and science. It’s setting up the plot for the Jewish nation and those patterns set up the plot of his chosen people being led astray by setting themselves up as greater than God and in need of a savior. Then in chapter 12 the story suddenly takes on a totally different spiriting style.
You may not think it, but you're drawn by the same spirit I was. Fighting against what is plainly in Scripture and the theological conclusions that have to be tossed in order to maintain reasoning faculties and faith in Christ. The specifics of how you go about it, what reasoning you use to maintain and avoid the literal plain word of Scripture as truth is immaterial.
It's ultimately a question of authority. Evolutionary biology is necessarily atheistic because it says man is the measure, that our reasoning abilities are the key to truth. That if we just reason enough, have enough empirical studies, draw on sensory data enough we can come to every truth of the universe. It is an attempt to be our own masters.
Yet God says we cannot serve two masters, we will end up loving one and despising the other. So ultimately you're going to have to decide which authority you're going to love and which you're going to despise. Is reason your master, or is Christ?
It's ultimately a question of authority. Evolutionary biology is necessarily atheistic because it says man is the measure, that our reasoning abilities are the key to truth. That if we just reason enough, have enough empirical studies, draw on sensory data enough we can come to every truth of the universe. It is an attempt to be our own masters.
Yet God says we cannot serve two masters, we will end up loving one and despising the other. So ultimately you're going to have to decide which authority you're going to love and which you're going to despise. Is reason your master, or is Christ?
-
2
- Show all
This is how I explain this part if it comes up while witnessing to the lost and they're not usually girl scouts or the choir
Cain left/got kicked out his family and then took a wife in Nod to began his line . Lamech his gggggrandson took two wives and claimed that if Cain was avenged 7 times then he would be avenged 70 times 7 ''BA'' .. and also mentioned the first tent dwellers, metal workers, musical instruments and mentioned Lamech's daughter Naamah as being named beautiful .. If Cain knew/regarded God at one time then forsook the Lord that would possibly make him a progressively fierce and knowledgeable in sin, double dead man , Important info ...The men would learn and take on their own false gods honoring themselves as culture rotted geometrically like a plague ...
Seth and others from Noah's line ''sons of God who called on the name of the Lord'' would also be taking on and intermarrying these women until their own clan was established and afterwards . A direct line to all .. But Noah, his family ended up being worth saving and his paternal line traced direct back to Adam .. as sin and idolatry eventually consumed all of mankind.... These daughters of men (Cain's line) would have taken their idols into the marriages with Sethites and families would become worse and worse to God until only Noah and his family were the only ones worth saving . That imo is why Cain and his line are mentioned and it's plenty to explain what happened .....
Idolatry is bad , it will transform you into a different and nasty person normally ending in destruction... After the flood Israel was constantly warned and forbidden to take on idols .. I could probably explain it better but I hate to make long posts ...
Joshua said
14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
Cain left/got kicked out his family and then took a wife in Nod to began his line . Lamech his gggggrandson took two wives and claimed that if Cain was avenged 7 times then he would be avenged 70 times 7 ''BA'' .. and also mentioned the first tent dwellers, metal workers, musical instruments and mentioned Lamech's daughter Naamah as being named beautiful .. If Cain knew/regarded God at one time then forsook the Lord that would possibly make him a progressively fierce and knowledgeable in sin, double dead man , Important info ...The men would learn and take on their own false gods honoring themselves as culture rotted geometrically like a plague ...
Seth and others from Noah's line ''sons of God who called on the name of the Lord'' would also be taking on and intermarrying these women until their own clan was established and afterwards . A direct line to all .. But Noah, his family ended up being worth saving and his paternal line traced direct back to Adam .. as sin and idolatry eventually consumed all of mankind.... These daughters of men (Cain's line) would have taken their idols into the marriages with Sethites and families would become worse and worse to God until only Noah and his family were the only ones worth saving . That imo is why Cain and his line are mentioned and it's plenty to explain what happened .....
Idolatry is bad , it will transform you into a different and nasty person normally ending in destruction... After the flood Israel was constantly warned and forbidden to take on idols .. I could probably explain it better but I hate to make long posts ...
Joshua said
14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
Again, I’m not an atheist by any means. Before I even believed in evolution strongly or gave much thought to it by studying Hebrew and studying patterns of the Tanakh and seeing what other scholars teased out of the stories and studying literature analysis it became clear a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 was not an honest understanding of the story. Same for Job and Jonah. Both of those stories are clearly wrote as fictional tales to convey a truth. Jesus himself used many fictional parables and examples and finally in revelation we see it being really used to create a artistic tale.