Rich4Truth, you can debate by attempting to use the words of Jesus for a change. Even Oldsailor and others agree with this concept. If we can't get truth from the words of Jesus, then we are all doomed.

Wayfinder:

In regard to the genetic differences between races of humans, you don't need to start off with a large population. Assuming Adam and Eve were created perfect by God, we could further assume that their DNA contained maximum potential. It would be the equivalent of "kinds" as the Bible puts it. Take cats for example. If we go back in time, all the way to the ark, to the original cat, which I believe contained a much larger gene pool, but over time because of location, breeding, diet, etc., different breeds of cat were developed naturally and mechanically through human intervention.

The bottom line of what I'm saying is this: you can great variation from only two people.

You mentioned Sumerians, but nothing specific about them, so how do they play into this?

I've read large portions of the book of Enoch and books about it. You're right, it's not credible at all. It's existence lends little to this discussion.

I would strongly disagree with Shane on the matter of death before sin. In fact, I would say he's dead wrong. Death is a result of sin. God made that amply clear in the Bible. I see no way to show otherwise from the Bible.

I'm very familiar with the idea that angels mated with human women, but this is only supported by extra biblical sources and is not substantiated by the Bible. The phrase "sons of God" never refers to angels, which by the way the Bible says are spirits. Genesis 6 is simply referring to the those who followed God marrying worldly women. I've seen nothing from the Bible that supports angels mating with human women.

Yes, Isaiah is talking about Satan, but it's in the past tense.

He fell from heaven
Cut down to the earth

Then he addresses him as the one who has weakened the nations. Keeping with the context of the verse, I don't think he's talking about the beginning with Adam and Eve, but just history in general, perhaps specifically Israel and others that went apostate.

d.r., I can use the whole Bible, just because you don't except it dosn't make it any less valid.

I didn't think you could do it. Not too many are. I suppose this is why Jesus warned us about this in Matthew 7.

John317,
Here is the Scriptural evidence that the brothers of Jesus wanted Him to go to Judea knowing full well that He would be taken by the Sanhedrin and killed if He went. Jerusalem is in Judea and was the center for the festivals.

(1) After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.   (2) Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand.   (3) So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.   (4) For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.”   (5) For not even his brothers believed in him.   (6) Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.   (7) The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.   (8) You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”   (9) After saying this, he remained in Galilee. John 7:1-9.

My explanation of the text is as follows;

Jesus knew that if He went to Jerusalem or anywhere in Judea that He would be killed. His brothers, including James, also knew this. So when the feast of Booths came they tried to fool their brother into going to the feast and seek the notoriety and publicity that would come from His miracles. They were obviously embarrassed by what He was doing and wanted it to stop. They had already tried to stop Him in their home town of Nazareth when He was teaching at the Synagogue, and even His mother was there trying to get Him to come home and settle down, and not bring shame on the family.

The brothers of Jesus did this because THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIM.

Jesus saw right through the ruse and told them that they should go to the feast because the Jews did not hate them because they were part of the Jewish world and would not be harmed if they went. But because the Jews hated Jesus He said that He would not go because His time had not yet come.

The brothers of Jesus would never have tried to murder Jesus themselves because they were cowards, so they tried to get Jesus to go somewhere where they knew He would be killed. Jesus knew that if they went to the feast they would not be killed because they were part of the Jewish world that hated Him.

There are several possible reasons as to why the brothers of Jesus hated Him, some of which are in this passage. Other reasons could be jealousy-maybe Jesus got more attention from Mary that did they. The brothers of Jesus, especially James, were staunch Jews and never gave up their Jewishness. They were afraid that they would be excommunicated from the Synagogue in Nazareth because of their relationship with Jesus, so they did not participate in any way that can be found in Scripture in the ministry of Jesus Christ while He was here on earth. James himself was a leader in the Synagogue in Nazareth so as is seen in this passage he went out of his way to distance himself from the celebrity of his older brother.

This is not a nice picture, but it does show how Satan will do anything to bring down the ministry of Truth of Jesus Christ, including using his brothers against Him.

I feel like we have multiple conversations about different topics going on in here. I'm involved in so many threads as it is, so if we could just stick to one topic per thread it will be easier on everyone involved. I'm speaking to everyone. Actually, I think I'm a bit off topic too.

Shane said, "The bottom line of what I'm saying is this: you can great variation from only two people."

You must have studied genetics from a different school of thought than I. Genetics is a science and as such is ruled by the Scientific Method, which is based on and experiment being able to be duplicated by another scientist in another location.

The operation of genetic material (RNA, DNA) has not changed since creation. It works the way it works because made it to work that way. God did not change DNA at Babel He changed language, which last time I looked was not genetic.

So my questions based on this scientifically acceptable premis are:

How many reproductive cycles would be necessary for a white couple to have their first black baby?

How many reproductive cycles would be necessary for a black couple to have their first white baby?

How many reproductive cycles would it take for an alligator pair to have a colt?

The answer is "NEVER". There are genetic variations that occur over time, but these are 'micro' changes, not 'macro' changes.

If God had created the first breeding pair (Adam and Eve) from separate and distinct genetic stock then, yes, I could see your point.

But He didn't. God formed Adam by creating for him a set of genetic markers that He set into Adam's DNA. Then God took Eve from that 'exact same' genetic stock because God took her out of Adam's DNA. The only difference between them was that one was XX and the other XY. Other than that they were identical. They were, genetically speaking, brother and sister.

Under those conditions is would be IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to have generated the myriad of different racial characteristics that exist in the world today, much less what might have existed before the flood.

This is just one scientific proof that God created ALL of the varieties of human 'races' AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME on the sixth day of creation. This would preclude "racism" as we experience it today, because we would recognize that God created all 'races' at the same time and did not begin everything with a single race. It is the single starting race concept that has caused the wild and rampant racism and bigotry in this world, and I believe that concept came straight from the one who benefits most from having racism in the world, Satan.

Then God said, “Let us make man(kind) in our image, after our likeness.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Gen.1:26,27.

"Man" in Hebrew is Strong's 120 and means either man as an individual or mankind as a species. It is reasonable to believe that since God had just finished creating all of the various species of animal and plants life on earth that He would do the same with humans.

Also, if God had created just the man Adam on the sixth day of creation (because we know that Eve was created much later than Adam by days if not weeks) then how could He say that He gave THEM dominion over the earth IF THERE WAS NO "THEM".

This is a very strong indicator that God could not have created Adam and Eve on the 6th day of creation, but created all the races of mankind all at once, so one would not be able to rule over the other but all would be equal in the sight of God.

If I said anything to the contrary of this it was a typo. This is exactly the case as I have stated it scores of times. Death entered the world through sin and sin through man. Thus death did not exist before man.

Thus this topic cannot be discussed in a scientific context. If we had samples of Adam and Eve's DNA and that of their children we could apply our science. Since we do not have such, we are left making educated guesses. That is more philosophy than science.



Depends upon what DNA was in the white couple? Were there any recessive genes? I am a light-skinned Irishman. My two children are as light as I am. They could marry a white person and quite easily have a brown child as their mother (my wife) is Hispanic.




This sounds as if someone has Adam and Eve's DNA in a laboratory some place. This is certainly more information that what the Genesis account offers.




We know language was changed at Babel. DNA could have also been changed. That is an unknown.

Shane:

I agree with you. We don't know how big Adam and Eve's gene pool was.

How do we "know" this? Please show how you get this notion from the Bible text.

If you are going to say "days if not weeks," why not include the possibility of years?

Gen. 1: 24-31 clearly shows that it teaches Adam and Eve were made on the sixth day of creation. Gen. 2: 1, 2 says that at the end of the sixth day of creation, God was finished creating. On the 7th day He rested, and there is no record of His continuing to create after that.

Perhaps you are saying (as the "Jehovah Witnesses teach) that the days of creation were long periods of time. However, no matter how one defines the days, the Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve were created on "the sixth day" and not on any day afterwards.

I think we're on dangerous ground when we start saying the Bible is wrong in such plain statements as that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day.

My friends on this thread,
I agree that this thread has taken a slight variation from the subject, I am sure that is partially my fault. I am concerned about what is being taught in universities concerning origins, if it is natural evolution, I see that this would be the first step down the road to diminishing God at best and doubting or rejecting Him at worst.

My understanding of the rationale for this, is that the creation account, as it is currently understood and taught, has trouble when considered in light of evidence. We as SDA have an even bigger problem in that natural evolution removes the seven day creation and there goes the seventh-day Sabbath.

The SDA leadership wanted to see if some resolution could be achieved by getting scientists and theologians together in a conference setting to try and find some common ground to start from. This was done for three years in a row, one year had international representation. At the conclusion of the third conference the outcome was official, both sides were still in disagreement, but they did agree on one thing, they would remain friends.

I know and individual who is a leading professor at one of our largest universities. He said, I am a scientist six days a week and a Seventh-day Adventist Christian one day a week.

All I am saying is this, do you really think this is what God wants? My understanding of God's will, is that He wants us to live in the light not the dark. Evidence that precludes belief should cause us to rethink the belief. I am not saying immediately change our belief, but rethink it. Is there another way of translating or understanding the text. There is one thing I have always found to be true about the truth, it can hold up under the toughest scrutiny.

I am not saying to you there were two creations whether you believe it or not. I am saying would we lose anything by investigation the evidence. Instead of teaching natural evolution why not investigate the creation account and ask new questions, consider new ideas, but keep God and the seven days intact in it.

I have studied the creation account and the possibility of two creations, for several years and I am satisfied that the evidence and the record can be reconciled. As far as the nations either being created on the sixth day of the creation week or coming through Adam and Eve. The following text was helpful in my resolving this question. I have included the lexicon definitions so you can verify the context and meaning, the key is the word mixing. A unique source cannot be mixed with itself. In other words you do not mix water with water, you can add water to water, but it is still water. If on the other hand you add salt you now have a mixture and the solution is not the same as what you started with. You can distill the water and make it pure again and no longer a mixture. I say this, because, I Adam and Eve's DNA contained all the blueprints of the different races than that DNA (seed) could not be a mixture.

Da 2:43
"And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one * another *, even as iron does not combine with pottery.

Strong's Number: 6151 `arab (Aramaic)
1.to mix, join together
a.(Pael) mixed (participle)
b.(Ithpael) mixed (participle)

Strong's Number: 2234 Z@ra` (Aramaic)
1.seed, offspring

Strong's Number: 606 'enash (Aramaic)
1.man, human being
2.mankind (collective)

I hope Jesus returns on the right day.

Just don't be sleeping when He returns!

Certainly not in the pews anyway...

That's the problem -- it is better to be a Christian 7-days a week and that way the junk-science of evolutionims never gets "believed".

True. Our Fundamental Beliefs make it pretty clear that we believe in a literal 7 day Creation week that ended with the 7th day Sabbath being sanctified and made holy. A literal week where all life on earth was created.

Hopefully PUC and La Sierra will take a few minutes to notice that not so subtle detail.

in Christ,

Bob

It would really be great for our church if we could somehow get the science community and the religious community in the church on the same page vis a vis origins and the Genesis creation account. Does anyone have any ideas how that could be accomplished?

It was tried, Musicman, but the climate was basically one where scientists were required to knuckle under to a literal young-earth creationism, because the theologians weren't budging. Many here would say that's appropriate, but that also means that what you describe is unlikely ever to happen. Honest scientists are not going to lie about the data.

And honest theologians are not going to change what the Bible says.

However what do we say about the many scientists that don't see the evidence like the gernal scientific community does? Do we say they are dishonest?

John317,
Good question.
Gen.2:2 and on is a description of the garden in which God placed Adam after he was formed. It is interesting that the word for 'create' in Gen.1:26-27 is Strong's 1254 (Bara) and is not the same word used for the word 'formed' in ch.2, which is Strong's 3335 (Yatsar). Is there a reason for the difference?

Adam was formed outside of the Garden of Eden and then taken and placed inside the garden. Sometime after that God 'caused yet again' trees and plants to grow and He brought animals up out of the ground for Adam to name. This certainly would have taken a while. Then later a search was made for a suitable helper for Adam "fit for him" from the world. It would be ridiculous in the extreme to think that those who were doing the search would be looking at a helper for Adam outside of the human species. A dog would never be considered to be a helper for Adam (even though dogs can be a help) as in an equal partner in kind.

We don't know how long all this took but it is evident that if, as is commonly held, Adam was created on the sixth day of creation then Eve could not have been taken from Adam until sometime after creation week was over. Hence, the ideas of days or weeks between Adam and the forming of Eve. And if Adam was formed after creation week was concluded (see Gen.2:1)(as I believe) then there still was a time differential between when Adam was formed and Eve taken from Adam for the same reasons as listed above. Note also in Ch 2:2 and on that there is no mention of separate days of the week as in Gen.1.

How in the world do you get Adam being made after creation week? ..And you put Eve even later than that?? Gen 1:27 plainly states that he created both of them on the 6th day.

1:27)So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:31)And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

On the sixth day of creation week, God made the nations, males and females. The nations were made with the same diversity as everything else God made. The nations, (ethinic) groups, today are a testimony to this fact. I have heard that Adam and Eve had all the genetic blueprints within their genes for the nations of the world, but this is absurd, if this were true, than any human couple of one race could not expect their offspring to be of the same race, because Adam and Eve would be a singular source of genetic blueprints.

Daniel 2:43
"And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery.

This text is God's interpretation of the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had. I thing everyone who has taken a chemistry class knows is that you cannot mix a single element with that same element and call it a mixture. A mixture consists of two different elements. Pure distilled
water is not a mixture, if you add pure distilled water to pure distilled water it is still not a mixture if you add salt to it then it is a mixture. The salt can be distilled out of the water, but the water cannot be distiled out of water. My point is, if Adam and Eve's genes contained blueprints for all of the races of mankind we have today, than there would be no such thing as pure races and any husband and wife would not know what to expect their offspring to be, race wise.
According to God's word to Daniel His prophet, in the last days there will be a mixing in the seed of men.

This is not all of the evidence, but enough said for now.

You're reading something that just isn't there my friend. That's not what the text says.

As far as Dan 2:43 goes, it's just saying that when we get down into the feet, (near the end of time) that there will not be another world government.

How parochial of you to dismiss something new or different just because it is new or different. Richard, you didn't hear a single thing Wayfinder said, because the instant that he said it you were thinking of a way to counter it. You are the very person to whom God said:

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

Strong's Number: 6151 `arab (Aramaic)
1.to mix, join together
a.(Pael) mixed (participle)
b.(Ithpael) mixed (participle)

Strong's Number: 2234 Z@ra` (Aramaic)
1.seed, offspring

Strong's Number: 1693 D@baq (Aramaic)
P'al) to cling

According to the Aramaic words used in their context, as I now see it, the nations will not adhere to one another (no one world empire), but they will combine together in their seed (mixed races), just look around the evidence is everywhere, even more so now than ever before. I am told we live in a global village.

I really enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your comments.

This is not new Musicman, I've heard you say this stuff before. It's too big of a stretch, I don't buy it.

Some are simply confused and mislead into thinking that junk-science storytelling that can not be substantiated in the lab -- is a kind of "science".

Others -- know about the "by faith alone" positioning of evolutionisms myths and doctrines.

As was pointed out here -
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post259100

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, with my moderator hat on, I am going to ask you to stop linking your own posts on this forum. Assume people have read them, or that they can search for them if they want to. Your posting is extremely repetitive already, adding links back to more of it is even more so.

The wording in the Scripture never changes, and at least in the Old Testament truth has been vetted by Jesus Christ Himself because He used the Old Testament Scripture to combat the fallacious thinking of the people that were supposed to know it backwards and forward-the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, and Saducees. It is not that they didn't know Scripture, they didn't know how to correctly interpret it. That is one of the things Jesus came to teach them, but with rare exception they would have none of it.

What made the interpretations of Jesus so unique? It cannot just be because He was God, because if that is the case then none of the rest of us have a chance to understand truth, and Jesus would have had no reason to chastise the Scribes and Pharisees for not understanding something they could never understand because they were not God.

No, it is because He used a different context and a different method for understanding Scripture. So, what is this context and what is this method?

Simply put (and this is ONLY my opinion) Jesus understood Scripture from the context of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Salvation comes through being in the Kingdom of Heaven. When you are born again your are born into the Kingdom of Heaven. His instructions about love, keeping the commandments, loving your neighbor as yourself, obedience, unity, achieving eternal life by becoming sanctified through His words, ALL were addressed to the Kingdom of Heaven. Since His Kingdom is righteous you must be righteous to be a member. And He made is perfectly clear that anyone can become a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, it is not an exclusive club as the Jews proposed. However, the requirements for membership ARE exclusive because He said that the gate to the Kingdom is narrow and few find it. Why? Because few are willing to do the hard work that it takes to become a member; "Love the Lord your God", which means obey the 10 Commandments as proof of your love, "And your neighbor as yourself", which means that if you love yourself enough to work to become a member of the Kingdom then you will show your neighbors how to do the same thing so they can have eternal life.

"And this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matt.24:14.

His method of understanding was simple; If God said it He meant it. Jesus took Old Testament Scripture literally. When He spoke Scripture into being during His earthly ministry He meant what He said literally. Yes, He spoke in parables which in many cases are prophecy. But He knew the intellectual and emotional capabilities of His disciples and knew that if He was too subtle they would not understand. So He always taught in understandable language and explained Himself when He thought it necessary.

We complicate our own understanding when we overstate what Jesus said. Example: Matt.24:42 - "Who then is the Faithful and Wise Servant who is feeding His fellow servants their food at the proper time." Most Bible students say that this means a class of people like ministers, or evangelists. But if Jesus actually meant what He said literally then this is a single individual that is giving information about the coming of Jesus Christ to his fellow servants just before that coming.

It is always so much simpler to take Jesus Christ's Words to mean exactly what He said. This limits the tendency that we all have of making private interpretations.

I have to admit - it is difficult to delete the point just because the point goes unnanswered. But I will do my best not to actually remind people of where the link is anymore if that is what is required by the forum.

Notice that in the Ex 20:8-11 summary in legal code God does not identify two creation events -- only 1 and the "yom" day -- is the same for Genesis 1-2:3 and for Ex20 according "to the text".

in Christ,

Bob

Tis true,









g

Since this topic actually "is" on the subject of PUC and its promotion of evolutionism over the Bible -

1. Has anyone shown that PUC claims the Bible teaches two creation weeks? If not - then I don't see how the two creation weeks idea address the case at PUC and if the two creation option does not just so happen to include millions of years of evolution in one of those creation weeks -- then again I don't see how it addresses the PUC issue.

2. That leaves us with - does the Bible creation account preach darwinism or a 7 day week? (Does PUC claim the Bible teaches darwinist billions of years to evolve life as we see it today??). So far no one has provided any evidence that the PUC Bible department is teaching that.

3. It also leaves us with looking at the flaws in the PUC misguided notion of promoting darwinism and the various ways that darwinists themselves show darwinism to be failed. (Though I will try to avoid posting the link that speaks to that point for the sake of the forum rules).

in Christ,

Bob

I could be wrong, but I think that's more of a Bravus rule.

?

I'm afraid that, according to Stan who runs this site, in this forum the Bravus rules are *the* rules. That's the way it is, that's the way it has to be. But I think it's a good and fair rule. If you want to question that, better take it to PM.

" In a recent Adventist World issue, Dr. Angel Rodriguez, Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference (GC), affirms that there are professors in our schools “who no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days” (Adventist World – NAD/July 2009). Adventist students taking classes from these teachers are being taught the evolutionist view. Dr. Rodriguez rightly identifies this situation as “outrageous.” We appreciate his and the Adventist World’s courage in speaking out. While these teachers cannot be labeled atheists, they do fit the definition of “theistic” evolutionists. This means that they believe that Genesis is not true, and that God used evolution to “create” life over hundreds of millions of years. This of course is the Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant view.

At the church-sponsored Faith and Science conferences of 2002–2004, leading Seventh-day Adventist scientists and theologians, among other points, affirmed the following:

1. We affirm the primacy of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of origins.
2. We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.

In light of this, one would have thought that evolutionary professors among us would have had the integrity and intellectual honesty to resign from Adventists schools. Sadly, that has not been the case. In the business world you would be promptly fired if you worked for one auto manufacturer but promoted the cars of another on company time. And neither company would question your exit. Why? Because there is just no respect for that kind of dishonest behavior in the business world. Adventist parents trust Adventist professors to build their children’s faith. So when an Adventist professor takes Adventist tuition money but proceeds to promote anti-biblical evolutionary theories and destroy faith, righteous indignation is certainly an expected reaction."