If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

Jar, the verse you quoted is powerful evidence for what I am talking about, at least in terms of biblical theology."22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"Man's consciousness contained power so much so it was either a threat to God or to himself perhaps that Adam might "live forever" in a fallen state.But if you cannot even accept that man's actions in the Garden represented a moral fall in his consciousness through his act of rebellion and subsequent awareness of sin (his nakedness), that this is what the Bible teaches whether right or wrong, I've got nothing more to say to you.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 09:45 PM

Man was a threat to GOD?What a wimpy little bling-bling pimpdaddy that God must be. But that's not what the Bible says. Try reading it sometime.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"It didn't make them immoral."The way they obtained that knowledge made them immoral. They disobeyed God, and consequently, according to the story and rest of the Bible, the entire creation suffers as a result of that.

Bob, thanks for that post. I am edited this to reflect a better tone.I really hadn't heard that mutations of some sort occur every time someone reproduces. It doesn't affect the point I was trying to make, but I'd like to hear more about that sometime.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 10:33 PM

You said, in Message 66, that:

quote:

---

...when mankind (Adam and Eve) fell as Genesis indicates, his consciousness fell....

---

I was simply pointing out that an increase in knowledge can not be a decrease in consciousness. Don't tapdance around the issue by pretending that consciousness = morality.(And what about them "birds"?)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

"I was simply pointing out that an increase in knowledge can not be a decrease in consciousness. Don't tapdance around the issue by pretending that consciousness = morality.(And what about them "birds"?)"I will get to the birds in a little while. I was planning to pull out a reference or 2 for that.On consciousness, the point is not a decrease in consciousness as you are thinking of decrease, although I would argue that an increase in knowledge and experience can result in a decrease if there is damage done to the person in the process.But for this discussion, my point is that man's consciousness fell morally and spiritually, specifically out of close communion with God, and that the Bible indicates there was a drastic change in all of creation as a result, and how would that have occurred.Note the subject of the thread concerns faith, and so I was discussing my faith which is based on the Bible and religious experience,but which I find parallels within the field of quantum physics to be illuminating.

I would think that if there was an apparent contradiction, reference-mining would not be necessary. You're using the word "consciousness" in an odd way. I would still say that the knowledge of good and evil increased man's consciousness, especially morally and spiritually. Before that knowledge, Adam and Eve were like children. It was only after The Fall^TM that man was really able to commune with God on a more-or-less "equal" footing. How can you "commune" when you don't know anything? What "drastic change in all of creation"? Are you one of those everything-was-perfect-before-The-Fall^TM guys? Because that don't fly either.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

"I would think that if there was an apparent contradiction, reference-mining would not be necessary."Uh, the reference was different translations and places the Hebrew term you call "bird" is used, which in the Hebrew can refer to other things besides just "birds"."What "drastic change in all of creation"? Are you one of those everything-was-perfect-before-The-FallTM guys? Because that don't fly either."I don't see how you guys don't get it. The Bible says the whole creation groans and travails, that the earth is cursed, etc, ...as a result of the fall in the Garden. We are talking here, keep in mind, on whether if evolution was proven true would that destroy one's faith, and I am telling you how it would not disprove my faith, and you guys keep droning on and on.Hey, if you don't think the Fall of Adam and Eve is a well-attested to biblical fact, that's your business bud. Don't worry, but you know, since the question was asked here about believer's faith, I am telling you about it, and most believers think man's consciousness "fell."Capische?If you don't think it did, that man remained in a pure state, well that's your perogative. I disagree.The inference by the way is that God would have allowed man to come into the knowledge of good and evil a different way, rather than rebellion, but hey, we all know He knew what was going to happen, but that gets us into a theology thread.

So the word can refer to other things. Where does it say there were two different kinds of flying creatures - implying dinosaurs? Chapter and verse?(Though this is off-topic, it goes to your understanding of the Bible - or lack thereof.) Where does it say that? Chapter and verse? You talk as if there is only one "believer's faith". I am trying to point out that your view is not the only one.As I have said before on this board, I've been in and out of evangelical churches for half a century and I never heard most of your ideas in church. I can only conclude that they are not commonly accepted. I think it's important to point that out for the benefit of any lurkers, who might be misled into thinking that you speak for anybody but yourself. I don't think that man was ever in a "pure state", nor do I know where you see that in the Bible. Chapter and verse? No. That's not an "inference". It's a speculation.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ringo, my ideas on the Bible are commonly accepted. I don't want to discuss my varied background, but part of it does include seminary, ordination as a minister, affialiation with more than one Christian denomination or group, speaking and teaching on the subject of the Bible, etc,...You erroneously claimed that the reference to prehistoric flying creatures being created from the sea could not refer to dinosaurs because the Bible refers to "birds", not dinosaurs. You were quite obnoxious about it, and totally wrong. The word "birds" is not in fact part of the original manuscript since English was not around at the time and whoever wrote Genesis did not speak English.The writer wrote in Hebrew. So you are wrong about what it "literally" says.The Hebrew word translated "fowl" in the KJV can refer to any winged and flying animal.Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly....fowl that may fly above the earth..."This was prior to man's creation according to the Bible. So these flying animals were prehistoric since there would be no written history without man.Now, in Genesis 2:19, the scriptures indicate a group of fowl made not from "the waters" but "out of the ground.""And out of the ground the Lord God formed...every fowl of the air"Clearly, we see the Bible mentioning prehistoric flying creatures, but which apparently do not exist by the time man is created, and God creates fowls "from out of the ground."Now, I know a lot of current theory probably has watered down the differences in dinosaurs "birds" from when I was growing up, and I am not here to even discuss all of that on this thread, but just to mention that, in Genesis, is a clear reference to dinosaurs, of course not the English word dinosaurs, but the implication is, if you accept both Genesis 1 and 2 as harmonious, that there were creatures that flew that had died out by the time man came on the scene.This is one of those apparent contradictions, fowl created from water and then from the ground, that are not a contradiction at all, and which indidentally the disocovery of dinosaurs cleared up quite nicely here.

"The Bible says the whole creation groans and travails, that the earth is cursed, etc, ...as a result of the fall in the Garden.Where does it say that? Chapter and verse?"Sure, Romans 8:21-22.But perhaps if you were to study the concept of "original sin", we could avoid all the nastiness, and you could see what traditional theology that accepts original sin is talking about.

Not where I've been. That's what I want to make clear. I'm sorry if asking for a straight answer is "obnoxious". I yam what I yam.I didn't say that the word could not refer to dinosaurs. I objected to you saying that it does refer to dinosaurs - i.e. that it refers to two different kinds of "flying creatures". You still have not substantiated that claim.Genesis 1 doesn't mention flying creatures created from the ground and Genesis 2 doesn't mention flying creatures created from water. How do you get two different kinds of creatures from that?I see where you're coming from with the "apparent contradiction", but to read dinosaurs into it requires a huge strech of the imagination. Where I come from, making up stuff and claiming the Bible says it is a real bad idea.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Now wait just a moment. You say but then go on into Genesis 2. In Genesis 2 man was created before and fowls. In Genesis 2 man gets created back around line 7 but the critters, including fowls don't get created until much later.It's stuff like this that has lead every single major Christian Chrurch to accept the TOE and oppose creationism. There is not a creation story in Genesis but rather at least two entirely different and mutually exclusive tales from two entirely different cultures and eras.If you are going to take these as consecutive tales then man gets created twice, once in Genesis 1 and then later in Genesis 2.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Romans ":21-22 says that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." That in no way implies that there was a change at The Fall^TM. Again, I'm sorry for any percieved "nastiness". If you're going to stick around here, you'd better get used to being asked to back up what you say.I am aware of the concept of Original Sin^{pat. pending}. I don't accept it. I want the peanut gallery to be aware that your views are not the only possible views, no matter how "traditional" you think they are.If I may lapse into "Grandpa Simpson" mode: I estimate that I've heard maybe 5000 sermons (so far) and not one mention in any of them of Original Sin^{pat. pending}. The first time I heard of the concept was in Robert L. Short's The Gospel According to Peanuts. Or was it The Parables of Peanuts?It is not, repeat not, a universally accepted concept.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

"You still have not substantiated that claim.Genesis 1 doesn't mention flying creatures created from the ground and Genesis 2 doesn't mention flying creatures created from water. How do you get two different kinds of creatures from that?"Um, what don't you get. Fowl were created from the water prior to man, and later fowl were created from the ground during the same era man was created? Do you not get the point, or are you just trying to avoid it. It's not a stretch. It's what the Bible says. Jar here even goes as far as to say it is a contradiction, but I will address that.Jar, man was created on the 6th "day", no? The fowl created from water were created on the 5th "day" or era, right?Genesis 2 is giving details on the 6th day creation. No contradictions unless you want to read them into it, or are arguing that the textual evidence backs the idea of 2 stories or some such, and even then, so what? They can be 2 true tellings of the same story. I see absolutely no contradiction here at all.Maybe you can explain:"If you are going to take these as consecutive tales then man gets created twice, once in Genesis 1 and then later in Genesis 2."How so? They are not consecutive tales. That's the whole point.Geesh!