Can I have both?

[Hockeycowboy]

I see the Bible as one story that begins in a paradise called Eden, and ends up back in paradise on earth again. I do not believe that God created humans to go to heaven or any other spiritual destination; I believe that he placed us here as material creatures on a beautiful planet to live an unending mortal life in peace and security, taking care of the planet, each other, and the creatures that share it with him.

@Gerry, some Scriptures to back up Deeje's comment about humans living here on Earth forever: (Revelation 21:3-4, "The tent of God is with mankind....and death will be no more"; Psalms 115:16; Isaiah 45:18; Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:29; et.al.

 

[Enoch07]

So you want a 4 year genetics university course in a forum post, yes this should be interesting but its not going to happen other than saying mitochondrial dna can be traced back to a single woman who lived around 200,000 years ago. There is no other time in human history where this generic bottleneck occurs.

The same is valid for the y chromosome but around 50,000 years +/- later.

Edit: text in bold edited to fix spelling errors

How does this exclude 1 family (a family whos bloodline is extinct mind you) from human history though is what I am asking?

 

[Deeje]

There is no doubt that adam and eve lived, although they we're in all probability not called adam and eve due to language development. Nor did they live in the same time period.

Genetically mDNA eve, the mother of us all lived around 200,000 years ago.

Whereas y chromosome adam, the father of us all lived between 120,000 and 160,000 years ago.

How does science know this with any certainty?

I love the way scientists pluck these figures out of who knows where, and then expects us to believe them, just because they say so. How do we know that these are not just made up numbers using faulty calculus? They can be proven wrong with the next discovery.

If the mother of all of us lived 200,000 years ago and the father of all of us didn't exist until 160,000 years ago, please account for the reproduction of humanity in the intervening thousands of years? It seems like a unintelligent thing to suggest that a mother can be a "mother" without the input of a "father" all that time.

Since gene pools are created by the the DNA of all contributing parents down a family line, it is an ocean now.....a very polluted one. How can science profess to know so much when it knows so little in the big picture? It appears to me to be poking around in the dark and making assumptions about all kinds of things....not many of which are based on fact....but more so on the suggestion of other equally flawed, or misinformed humans.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What's a "spiritual fact?"


So you agree that it's not literally true?

What's a "spiritual fact?"


So you agree that it's not literally true?

A fact discerned via the spirit.

I can’t see how any of the story could be literally true.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

" I do not believe a new species can evolve from a different one."
"if God also created evolution to allow species to evolve into different ones, I have no problem with that either."

It doesn't seem as if you know what you believe, because it changes from one paragraph to another.

My belief may not be truth. I can live with that possibility.
Can you?

There was a “however” in my statement. But, of course, you knew that didn’t you?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

1. I believe in evolution and I believe the earth is billions of years old. This is what I was taught and the
evidence is overwhelming to accept it.
2. I also believe the 7 day creation story from Genesis. It’s a beautiful story filled with incredible information.

My mind’s understanding of these things is in harmonious peace.

Does anyone else feel the same?
If not, do you think you could get there?

Creationism can only be true as allegory. In fact, the story of the Garden of Eden is an amazingly insightful allegory for man's acquisition of full self-awareness, which imparts to us our knowledge of good and evil. And the Devil is simply an allegory for our ability to choose between good and evil.

 

[ChristineM]

How does this exclude 1 family (a family whos bloodline is extinct mind you) from human history though is what I am asking?

Considering the bible claims humanity came from that bloodline and humanity is not extinct methinks you are making things up.

 

[ChristineM]

How does science know this with any certainty?

I love the way scientists pluck these figures out of who knows where, and then expects us to believe them, just because they say so. How do we know that these are not just made up numbers using faulty calculus? They can be proven wrong with the next discovery.

If the mother of all of us lived 200,000 years ago and the father of all of us didn't exist until 160,000 years ago, please account for the reproduction of humanity in the intervening thousands of years? It seems like a unintelligent thing to suggest that a mother can be a "mother" without the input of a "father" all that time.

Since gene pools are created by the the DNA of all contributing parents down a family line, it is an ocean now.....a very polluted one. How can science profess to know so much when it knows so little in the big picture? It appears to me to be poking around in the dark and making assumptions about all kinds of things....not many of which are based on fact....but more so on the suggestion of other equally flawed, or misinformed humans.

And i love the way you malign science when you have no understanding of science.
DNA does not lie, just ask the majority of inmates on death row, those convicted on dna evidence.
It is well explained with a Google search or simply follow my Iinks in post #60.

 

[Enoch07]

Considering the bible claims humanity came from that bloodline and humanity is not extinct methinks you are making things up.

The Bible claims no such thing.

You are basing your conclusion on a falsehood.

So do you have an answer for my question? How does your DNA evidence exclude one families existence from human history?

 

[ChristineM]

The Bible claims no such thing.

You are basing your conclusion on a falsehood.

So do you have an answer for my question? How does your DNA evidence exclude one families existence from human history?

I am basing my conclusion on what is actually written in the bible, not how various branches of christianity choose to interpret it.

Genesis 3:20,

My reply anssered your question, that you don't accept the answer is hardly my problem.

But you are making the claim adam and eves bloodline is extinct, please explain this conclusion.

 

[Enoch07]

I am basing my conclusion on what is actually written in the bible, not how various branches of christianity choose to interpret it.

Genesis 3:20,

My reply anssered your question, that you don't accept the answer is hardly my problem.

But you are making the claim adam and eves bloodline is extinct, please explain this conclusion.

The scripture you cite is only Adam naming Eve. Is this supposed to be your evidence of the bible claiming Adam and Eve as the first humans? That's rather nonsensical.

So, I will answer my own question for you since you are reluctant to participate. The answer is "It does not". That being said you have to allow for the possibility that both evolution as we currently understand it, and the creation of Adam and Eve could both be true.

Here is how.

Genesis 1:26-28

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

These "humans" created here eventually become us. Our evolutionary ancestors as we know them. The mitochondrial "Adam and Eve". These people, or us, are known as the 6th day creations.

Biblical Adam and Eve were not created until much much later. Here Adam is created after the 7th day when God rested.

Genesis 2:7

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then later Eve in Genesis 2:21-22

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

You see Adam and Eve were created for a specific reason, but that reason was not to populate the Earth. It was already populated by the 6th day creations in Genesis 1.

Later on after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. There is more evidence of the 6th day creations as Cain conceived a child with one of them.

Genesis 4:16 for Cain

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Here Adam and Eve had another child named Seth who also conceived a child with our ancestors to continue the bloodline you can follow the genealogy on your own from there.

Genesis 4:25

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Anyways this is what the Bible actually claims.

 

[ChristineM]

The scripture you cite is only Adam naming Eve. Is this supposed to be your evidence of the bible claiming Adam and Eve as the first humans? That's rather nonsensical.

So, I will answer my own question for you since you are reluctant to participate. The answer is "It does not". That being said you have to allow for the possibility that both evolution as we currently understand it, and the creation of Adam and Eve could both be true.

Here is how.

Genesis 1:26-28

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

These "humans" created here eventually become us. Our evolutionary ancestors as we know them. The mitochondrial "Adam and Eve". These people, or us, are known as the 6th day creations.

Biblical Adam and Eve were not created until much much later. Here Adam is created after the 7th day when God rested.

Genesis 2:7

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then later Eve in Genesis 2:21-22

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

You see Adam and Eve were created for a specific reason, but that reason was not to populate the Earth. It was already populated by the 6th day creations in Genesis 1.

Later on after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. There is more evidence of the 6th day creations as Cain conceived a child with one of them.

Genesis 4:16 for Cain

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Here Adam and Eve had another child named Seth who also conceived a child with our ancestors to continue the bloodline you can follow the genealogy on your own from there.

Genesis 4:25

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Anyways this is what the Bible actually claims.

Your interpretation is charming however the words say

Genesis 3:20. The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

End of story

So where does it say that bloodline is extinct

 

[Katzpur]

I'll have to inform the General Authorities of this, so that they can disavow what they have taught and put in all the teaching manuals since 1909, when they wrote the first of several official letters regarding this issue.

All of them state, more or less long windedly, that the church has 'no official position' on evolution, and that the only thing that we teach is that God DID create us. We do not have the chutspah to inform Him of HOW He had to do it. We are content to let Him tell us.

I appreciate your comments, dianaiad. I have had this same conversation with Shunyadragon before and have told him exactly the same thing you just did. The fact that he is making the same accusation all over again, just goes to prove that he is one of those people who would actually prefer to stick with the lies rather than get his facts straight. A thousand Mormons could tell him the same thing, and he'd continue to dismiss what they had to say.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Indeed.
Also, I can see the beauty in the story, while thinking the spiritual facts are true.
I never saw beauty in the story when I struggled with the literal belief of it, and the contradictions between 1 and 2. And I never could really even believe it, since I’m more of a math/science person.

You know, Newton was a "math/science person." And he believed in a literal Genesis.

Can you offer some specifics?

Is it the creative days? A study of relevant texts indicates they weren't literal days.

Is it the order of what occurred during those time periods? They agree with the facts.

Is it genetics, that one couple became the parents of all living? Well, do you know anyone living today, whose genetics allow them to live over 900 years? But early in human history, i.e., the closest descendants of Adam and Eve, men are described as living for centuries!

Can science explain that?

We don't understand everything about genetics.

Just curious about what you find as inaccurate.

Take care.

EDIT: Just want to mention that Newton did not agree with Church teachings (he did not believe the Trinity or hellfire or geocentric philosophy), but he did believe the Bible was truth, i.e., the Word of God.

Two quotes, "I study the Bible daily."

His conclusion?

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired.....
I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."

— Sir Isaac Newton (Optics, 1704)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

1. I believe in evolution and I believe the earth is billions of years old. This is what I was taught and the
evidence is overwhelming to accept it.
2. I also believe the 7 day creation story from Genesis. It’s a beautiful story filled with incredible information.

My mind’s understanding of these things is in harmonious peace.

Does anyone else feel the same?
If not, do you think you could get there?

The most literal interpretation of Genesis is one extreme, while at the other is the most literal interpretation of Darwinism, the belief that the design of a single cell morphed into a human being through millions of purely accidental changes

Both are fairly extreme minority beliefs, and the vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle

so, yes and no!

 

[Enoch07]

Your interpretation is charming however the words say

Genesis 3:20. The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

End of story

So where does it say that bloodline is extinct

"Living" in Genesis there doe not mean what you think it does. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2416.htm

Understanding the bible on more than a child like level takes time and research. If all your going to do is read it word for word and take everything literally, how does that make you different than a fundamemtalist?

Anyways thanks for trying! Toodles!

 

[ChristineM]

"Living" in Genesis there doe not mean what you think it does. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2416.htm

Understanding the bible on more than a child like level takes time and research. If all your going to do is read it word for word and take everything literally, how does that make you different than a fundamemtalist?

Anyways thanks for trying! Toodles!

I am not interested in whatever interpretation your faith favours. I am interested in what is ACTUALLY written.

Any child can make up stories to massage their sensibilities.

Oh and you said, and i quote

The scripture you cite is only Adam naming Eve. Is this supposed to be your evidence of the bible claiming Adam and Eve as the first humans? That's rather nonsensical.

Seems you don't know much about the bible after all.

 

[Enoch07]

I am not interested in whatever interpretation your faith favours. I am interested in what is ACTUALLY written.

Any child can make up stories to massage their sensibilities.

Oh and you said, and i quote

The scripture you cite is only Adam naming Eve. Is this supposed to be your evidence of the bible claiming Adam and Eve as the first humans? That's rather nonsensical.

Seems you don't know much about the bible after all.

Then who did Cain marry have a child with then?

Adam and Eve had no daughter so incest is not even possible.

If you are serious about what is written then you accept the 6th day creations as the first humans.

Because it is the 6th day creations that Cain and Seth married and had children with.

 

[ChristineM]

"Living" in Genesis there doe not mean what you think it does. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2416.htm

Understanding the bible on more than a child like level takes time and research. If all your going to do is read it word for word and take everything literally, how does that make you different than a fundamemtalist?

Anyways thanks for trying! Toodles!

I've just read most of your link but don't read Hebrew. It actual agree an precisely with the definition of living... I.e. alive

 

[Enoch07]

I've just read most of your link but don't read Hebrew. It actual agree an precisely with the definition of living... I.e. alive

It takes time,patience and a lot of translation to gain a greater understanding.