After adam and eve, evolution?

[cwes99_03]

Sorry, Harzburgite. I hadn't taken the time to read all the replies when I dropped a two second comment earlier in reply to Goku. I was running to lunch, and have since been working on a bunch of things.

 

The scriptures you quote are in fact talking about the Garden and all of the earth was to eventually be inhabited by the descendents of (as well as) Adam and Eve.

 

Read Genesis 2:5-9 First note that verse five says that there was no plant or herb in the earth yet because God had not made it rain and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Notice the two trees were in the middle of the garden. Also it says he planted the garden to the east. If the whole earth was at that time a garden, why does it say God planted a garden to the east? To the east of what?

Read Genesis 2:10-14 Note that the rivers flowed out of Eden, out of the garden into another portion of the land, meaning that the rest of the earth was not part of the garden.

 

Read Genesis1:28 Adam and Eve were to fill the earth and subdue it. Add this Genesis 2:5 and you realize that to subdue the earth would involve cultivating the ground, and doing basic gardening type things to expand the garden that God had begun until the whole earth was subdued (turned into a garden.)

 

Read Genesis 3:16-24 First it says that God cursed Eve to have painful birth and then God cursed the ground and caused thorns and thistles to grow so that Adam’s life would not be easy. Then it says God put them out of the garden to cultivate the ground, and posted cherubs at the entrance to the garden to keep them out of it. Sounds to me like the earth was then imperfect.

 

The perfection of Nature, whether within the Garden or outwith the Garden is not effected. On that basis I cannot see any Biblical justification for your proposal that the imperfect animals and plants then suffered further mutation, for it was Adam and Eve, and their progeny, who were now imperfect, not the rest of Nature. The rest of Nature still lacked a knowledge of Good and Evil, since Nature had not partaken of the Tree of Knowledge. Hence Nature was still perfect.

 

I’m not sure how or even why Nature would have partaken of the Tree of Knowledge. Obviously animals could have eaten of the fruit, but then the Bible doesn’t say anything about God banning them from partaking of it. Of course, for animals to know what the difference of Good and Bad, they would have to have reasoning skills and all of that other stuff. No God made Adam and presented him with this law, not nature. Adam was to have nature in his subjection. The above study shows why I can say that the rest of the earth became imperfect when Adam and Eve were removed from the only perfect part of the earth, the garden of Eden.

[cwes99_03]

It is interesting though that the Masoretes recopied the scrolls available and wrote notes in the margins noting where the Sopherim who had previously copied these texts had made changes. The notes in the margins or their copies add to the historical value of their copies, making it possible to note what the original texts were more likely to say.

The Masoretes and the Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew was the first classical language to be systematically

punctuated. In comparison with modern languages the system was very

complex: there are more commonly used punctuation marks in Hebrew than

there are letters in the English alphabet, and they are applied not only

between phrases but to virtually every word of the scriptures, indicating very

precisely each word’s relationship with others in a phrase as well as dividing

each sentence into hierarchically ordered word-groups. This complexity,

coupled with sometimes substantial orthographic variations between printed

editions, has led many students of the language to neglect Hebrew

punctuation entirely.

http://www.bfbs.org.uk/documents/Masoretes.pdf

To learn more about them and what they did visit wikipedia and other sites that mention them.

They continued their work from around 200 AD to around 1400 AD. Seems like they kept the books fairly well.

 

Edit: Let's also note that your attempts at hijacking this thread are not welcome. This thread is not for you to put down others or to call their beliefs wrong. While you are entitled to you opinion, placing it here as you have is against theology forum rules.

[TRoutMac]

That's right! Science is so at odds with biblical explanations of origins that anyone trying to mix the two must get very confused. At what point do you believe one over the other, and on what basis? Fundamentalists have the most honest philosophy. By ignoring scientific facts, they can avoid the whole controversy.

 

Apparently you believe that whatever science concludes is always right. At one time, science concluded that the Earth was the center of the universe, so obviously it is possible for "popular" science to be quite wrong.

 

Therefore, that "popular" science disagrees with the Biblical account of origins does not make the Biblical account false. It could well be that (are you sitting down?) the scientific account is wrong. Wow!! What a concept! You mean humans can make mistakes? Say it isn't so!!

 

Secondly, fundamentalists don't "ignore scientific facts". Rather, many scientists who carry a view of origins which is counter to that of the Bible are ignoring some very important scientific facts; much of what science holds as true with respect to origins is not fact-based at all.

[cwes99_03]

Trout you know that it was religion the tried to keep science thought from changing the idea that the earth was the center of the universe right? Your arguments are rarely well thought out.

 

Get off this thread, you are straying again from the topic.

[Edge]

ye know, you either believe the whole bible or don't believe at all. :shrug:

Yeah, black and white...

 

Surely not, have you read science books that have been translated and are old. Sure, they have true facts but then some of them have been disproven. That does not mean that you have to deny all the book.

 

I'm not saying that the Bible has to necessarily have errors, but you get the point. You may believe in all of it or not in all of it.

i for one know that every word of the bible is true. :umno:

Interesting. Do you really know or do you believe and have faith that everything is true in there?

[TRoutMac]

Trout you know that it was religion the tried to keep science thought from changing the idea that the earth was the center of the universe right? Your arguments are rarely well thought out.

 

Get off this thread, you are straying again from the topic.

 

Hey, Cwes. Did I shoot your dog, or something?

 

Humans have done many a silly thing in the name of religion… and they will continue to do so. To the extent that religion tried to preserve a geocentric view, the religious leaders of the day had their priorities all screwed up. They were putting all the emphasis on the physical location of Earth within the universe, and it never occurred to them that the physical location of the Earth was, and is, quite irrelevant. Nowhere does the Bible state that the Earth is positioned at the center of the universe, with everything revolving around it. The Copernican idea that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe, it turns out, was never in conflict with the Bible.

 

The popular 'scientific' view of origins, however, clearly does conflict with the Biblical account. That means we either misunderstand (once again) the Bible, or we misunderstand scientific evidence. Seems clear to me that with regard to origins, the scientific community has misunderstood the scientific evidence.

 

Since you've stated you don't believe in evolution, I would think you would not have a problem with this. I don't believe in evolution either.

[Edge]

Woa, people. So, science demonstrates something. If it goes against the Bible then it's wrong? I mean, WTF?

[TRoutMac]

Woa, people. So, science demonstrates something. If it goes against the Bible then it's wrong? I mean, WTF?

 

Edge… I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did, but I didn't. All I said was that where science and the Bible speak on the same issue and disagree, then obviously one of the two must be either misunderstood or just plain wrong. Hell… theoretically they could both be wrong. But if they disagree, then they can't both be right. Right?

[cwes99_03]

The popular 'scientific' view of origins, however, clearly does conflict with the Biblical account. That means we either misunderstand (once again) the Bible, or we misunderstand scientific evidence. Seems clear to me that with regard to origins, the scientific community has misunderstood the scientific evidence.

Hence the reason I asked the question. Does the theory of evolution actually just reflect the Biblical idea that after Adam and Eve sinned, the world was imperfect enough to allow for mutations (in some cases quite serious mutations.) Your simple argument that science must be wrong in the case of evolution because the Bible says these things were created is just like what those religious leaders did back then. They rejected the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun because they believed the Bible showed that the earth was special to God and that would mean that it would be at the center of his universe. They refused to acknowledge scienctific evidence in their thoughts.

I do not believe that every living thing evolved from some amino acids in a turbulent earth. I do however know mutations happen every day. I pose a response that seems to fit both views quite well. I ask others who believe in the Bible to do a peer review of this idea. I ask that those who have nothing to add but criticism of those who have faith in the Bible to leave this thread alone.

You do nothing but invite these people to the thread. See the above posts for evidence. For this reason I ask that you leave this thread alone. You have not added anything new since the last time I told you to post according to the thread rules.

[Edge]

Edge… I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did, but I didn't. All I said was that where science and the Bible speak on the same issue and disagree, then obviously one of the two must be either misunderstood or just plain wrong. Hell… theoretically they could both be wrong. But if they disagree, then they can't both be right. Right?

Well, on another sense they could be both right. :shrug:

[TRoutMac]

Your simple argument that science must be wrong in the case of evolution because the Bible says these things were created is just like what those religious leaders did back then. They rejected the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun because they believed the Bible showed that the earth was special to God and that would mean that it would be at the center of his universe.

 

Those religious figures superimposed their personal, subjective belief that the Earth "must be" the center of the universe onto the Bible despite the fact that the Bible never made a geo-centric claim. That's very different from the origins issue, because the Bible does make a very specific claim regarding origins. It's not merely my personal, subjective belief that God created the universe… I didn't just make that up. That's what the Bible says, and it says He did it in 6 days. Now, we're all free to believe that or disbelieve it, or to twist its meaning, or whatever, but that is what the Bible says so no, I'm not making the same mistake they made.

 

Apparently I've long-since worn out my welcome on this thread, so this is my last post. Sorry if I attracted people to your topic, and I'm also sorry if I actually agreed with your basic "theory" about mutations and such being the result of the fall. That must be very offensive. I hate it when people agree with me. Really ticks me off. (note sarcasm)

[cwes99_03]

Thanks Trout. I only don't like you posting when you post off of the thread and keep posting off of thread once youve been asked not to. You made your point about agreeing with the possibility, and disagreeing with the idea that all life originated from single cell organisms. I'm not debating that here on this thread. All I was asking is whether or not people had any thoughts about whether or not the mutations used as evidence by evolutionists could be equally explained by Bible accounts of the downfall of Adam and Eve.

You said it seems like a plausible case, I thank you for that support. To then continue to argue whether evolution or creation is right, I ask that you post that in another thread (preferably one of those that has already been debated.) When you refused to do this, that is when you wore out your welcome.

 

Waiting for a response from anyone including harzburgite on what I posted a day ago about my reasons for believing that all creation according to the Bible became imperfect when Adam and Eve sinned.