evolution in the bible

[Father Heathen]

Nor do today's creationists. I kinda wish they did, there
Might-might- be a debate about something real, instead of this
seriously silly nonsense.

If creationists were genuinely interested in evidence and rational debate, there would be no creationists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

it means they evolved because they change their diet. they ate something of not the ordinary.

Maybe they were eating Skittles.

 

[Milton Platt]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

Nope

 

[ChristineM]

literal creationism is wrong. the stories were simple stories to help people back then to understand how the world works. the priests back then took reality and camouflaged it in mythology to teach the illiterate.

Yet 3000 years later priests are still teaching simple bronze age stories and people still believe them

 

[URAVIP2ME]

it means they evolved because they change their diet. they ate something of not the ordinary.

I think the word for after eating the forbidden fruit is : devolved

 

[ChristineM]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

Observable evolution in humanity does not show itself in biblical timescales of a couple of thousand years.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

i think the fruit is important. what we eat defines us.

What they ate sure seemed to define Adam and Eve ( even Adam and Evil )
That one forbidden fruit tree I find stood for God's standards: God's standard for conduct or behavior.
Thankfully mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for mankind according to Revelation 22:2 when we will see ' healing for earth's nations ' under Christ's 1,000-year governmental reign over Earth.
So, because of the return of the ' tree of life ' mankind can gain what Adam and Eve lost.
Mankind will be healed from human imperfection, and have the opportunity to gain everlasting life on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall (before breaking God's standard).

 

[Darkstorn]

What they ate sure seemed to define Adam and Eve ( even Adam and Evil )
That one forbidden fruit tree stood for God's standards: God's standard for conduct or behavior.
Thankfully mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for mankind according to Revelation 22:2 when we will see ' healing for earth's nations ' under Christ's 1,000-year governmental reign over Earth.
So, because of the return of the ' tree of life ' mankind can gain what Adam and Eve lost.
Mankind will be healed from human imperfection, and have the opportunity to gain everlasting life on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall (before breaking God's standard).

That just seems like really out of place proselytizing.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

it was a talking snake , so the snake de evolved if thats even a word

As a ventriloquist uses a dummy, I find Satan as that ' snake in the grass ' serpent in Eden used that animal.
In other words, that literal serpent did Not do the talking, but Satan made it appear that way to Eve.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That just seems like really out of place proselytizing.

Or, more like what we can really learn from the Bible.
As a textbook, in the Bible I read about the ' tree of life ' in Genesis.
Then I read how mankind lost access to the ' tree of life '.
I also read at Revelation's happy climax that mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life '.

 

[Darkstorn]

Or, more like what we can really learn from the Bible.

Then make a thread about it. Right now you're subverting this thread's purpose for your own.

As a textbook, in the Bible I read about the ' tree of life ' in Genesis.
Then I read how mankind lost access to the ' tree of life '.
I also read at Revelation's happy climax that mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life '.

Yes, but in the context of this thread this is off-topic and could easily be considered breaking the forum's proselytizing rule.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then make a thread about it. Right now you're subverting this thread's purpose for your own.
Yes, but in the context of this thread this is off-topic and could easily be considered breaking the forum's proselytizing rule.

I find 'evolution in the Bible' is a religious topic.
I find Adam and Eve devolved after eating the forbidden fruit.
I find mankind has Not conquered sickness and death.
So, mankind has Not evolved past sickness and death.

 

[Darkstorn]

I find 'evolution in the Bible' is a religious topic.

But nothing you've said in the posts i quoted has anything to do with evolution.

I find Adam and Eve devolved after eating the forbidden fruit.

That is not evolution. And neither is devolution, even if that could physically happen. It doesn't happen in individuals, but populations.

I find mankind has Not conquered sickness and death.
So, mankind has Not evolved past sickness and death.

I don't think you understand evolution.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But nothing you've said in the posts i quoted has anything to do with evolution.
That is not evolution. And neither is devolution, even if that could physically happen. It doesn't happen in individuals, but populations.
I don't think you understand evolution.

I want to apologize to you. However, I don't understand why is the ' Bible ' mentioned in the topic ' evolution in the Bible ' if the Bible can't be mentioned.

 

[Darkstorn]

I want to apologize to you. However, I don't understand why is the ' Bible ' mentioned in the topic ' evolution in the Bible ' if the Bible can't be mentioned.

I've no problem with referencing the bible because that's part of the context: The topic is Evolution in the Bible after all like you say. But it's not just "Bible." So something that's in the Bible but has nothing to do with the topic, isn't really relevant.

 

[Faithofchristian]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

No, the bible doesn't. So I don't know where you got that idea from.

This is what happens when people quote things that's not in the Bible. Then it's pick up and people will say, doesn't the bible say this or that.

When it's evidence that themselves have no clue about the bible themselves.
Otherwise they wouldn't ask a question, knowing if it was there or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

No.

 

[Windwalker]

Even if that's true(it's still part of a mythological story) it wasn't due to them eating a magical fruit. I repeat my original claim: I don't think you understand what evolution means.

Forgive me, but don't you know what a metaphor is? "Forbidden fruit"? You think this is a scientific statement?

 

[Darkstorn]

Forgive me, but don't you know what a metaphor is? "Forbidden fruit"? You think this is a scientific statement?

No. But i'm not the one who made this thread. Evolution is about biology, a science. So how does it being a metaphor exactly help the argument the OP is making?

This is the context of my post: "adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?"

 

[Skwim]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

In a possible sense, you may be right.

The word "evolution" isn't restricted biological evolution. The car evolved from the Karl Benz's Motorwagen, built in 1885, to today's Rolls Royce Wraith. And the first true piano, built by Bartolomeo Cristoforti around 1700 evolved into today's electronic keyboards.

Of course the Bible doesn't "clearly say they evolved." To do so it would have to use the word "evolve" or an unmistakable synonym. But one may infer they evolved; however, as I read it, a better term would be "changed into." "Evolution" implies going through several stages of change, which I don't see.

.