Posted on 08/23/2008 8:21:11 AM PDT by truthfinder9
What Darwin Didn't Know an RTB conference in our nation's capital.
February 12, 2009 marks Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his book, On Origin of Species. People worldwide will engage in Darwin Day celebrations honoring Darwin’s influence on science and culture.
The Reasons to Believe, Washington D.C, Network and Christ Church on Embassy Row are proud to announce an RTB Regional Conference addressing this all-important event. Hear RTB scholars Fuz Rana, Kenneth Samples, Jeff Zweerink and Hugh Ross present the latest evidence that challenges Darwinism and supports the Christian faith.
October 24-25 2008 Register at http://www.cconembassyrow.com/rtb.html
For more information on this and other events, visit www.reasons.org/events
Answer my question, and then, I will answer yours.
I don’t think Ken Ham presents a straightforward reading of the Bible. He invents stuff that isn’t in the bible, such as his claim that Cain and others of his family married their siblings.
More to the point, you waltz into the thread with cryptic comments — COMPROMISERS — that imply anything other than a strict literal reading of the Bible is a compromise.
Am I wrong, and if so, explain your post.
Who else could they have married!
And you still have not answered my question about Gen 1 and Ex 20...what does those two passages put together mean to you?
This is an open thread, isn't it? "Waltz in"?
I haven't ever seen an answer to that question in the Bible itself. Do you think it's OK to make stuff up that isn't in the Bible and use your made up stuff to teach children that God sometimes says incest is OK?
As for the meaning of your passages, it means to me that all religious leaders use fear and intimidation to discourage dissent. Some say they have stone tablets; some gold plates.
At least some of them are fibbing.
I’ve answered your questions. Now answer mine. Does the earth move?
I will not reply to any more comments on this thread.
It’s taking a long time to type a yes or a no.
That’s an amazing group of men and have done great work proving Creation. They are all highly educated scientist.
Who else could they have married!
Other females of the tribe who were evolving along with Adam and his family.
God forbidding incest coupled with Cain's marriage (as well as Seth's) is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution in the Bible.
There is also no justification for "another tribe" in Genesis. God said that He created Adam and Eve, that they bore two sons, who are named, Cain and Abel, "other sons and daughters," and then Seth, as a replacement for Abel. The most straight forward reading can easily be reconciled as the best reading. Unfortunately, Hugh Ross does not seem to rely on the straight forward readings, and has "compromised" with naturalistic science to disallow the clear words of Scripture.
I find it interesting that someone who disparages compromise with naturalism will not answer a simple yes or no question: does the earth move. I also find it interesting that someone who disparages compromise can accept a morality that shifts at the whim of authority. I thought morals were absolute.
Aaaaaand, here’s the context:
“The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” - Darwin, Descent of Man
Which basically says as civilization continues to expand, it tends to eliminate or influence the “missing links” from which civilization came. He was using this as one explanation for the absence of living intermediate forms in his day. Life as competition, imagine that.
You’re claiming that Chuck Darwin saw Negroes as soon-to-be missing links??
So ... incest was permitted before Leviticus 17? God's morality changed at that point? Whatever the reason, genetic corruption is not stated as a reason. "It is a depravity" and "It is an abhorrence," are used several times.
Besides, it it was to avoid genetic corruption, 17:22 -- Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman -- wouldn't be necessary. Unless you're suggesting that homosexuality could have resulted in pregnancy, before God banned it. Which, frankly, would be about as sensible as the rest of your views on biology.
In any case if Adam and Eve were genetically pure, how could their descendants be genetically impure, except by mutation? Evolution, once again.
You are reading what you want into the Bible without any basis except what you wish it would be. At least, when I find references to evolution in the Bible, my reading into it is backed up by science.
Disgusting really that you call yourself “Litekeeper.” God protect the students who you try to keep in the dark.
Yeah, yeah, you’ll call the moderator and get this erased. But God knows you teach ignorance of His Creation. That God knows good enough for me.
.
Exactly as the Bible states:
Genesis Ch 6Corruption by breeding with another 'species.' (angels)
1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Exactly as the Bible states:
Genesis Ch 6
1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Corruption by breeding with another 'species.' (angels)
Wouldn't the Son of God be Christ?
In any case, the word is "Nephilim" which is, pretty unclear. Much of the commentary says they are the Children of Cain, which would be just as pure, where as Noah had no taint of Cain but was entirely descended from Seth.
Mind you, the Bible never mentions God creating the Nephilim. So were they someone God didn't create. Or if God did create them, they were created corrupt? Or... well, gee... God must have created corruption somewhere for it to sneak into humans....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.