Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
markwsmith

The apes

Recommended Posts

If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? Would not all the apes have evolved into men? I know it's too logical! Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very good question. Evolutionarily speaking they should have. Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evolutionist believes that men evolved from apes. They believe that apes and men evolved from a common ancestor. Of course the whole idea of evolution contradicts the Bible and it isn't even supported by science. Here are some good sites where you can learn more about this subject:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/

 

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

 

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

 

We live in a culture in which evolution is accepted as proven science and is rarely questioned. I used to believe it because that is what I was taught in school. However most of the "proof" for evolution consists of claims that cannot be proved or verified. If you visit those sites you will find that there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it but most are either unaware of the evidence or ignore it or try to explain it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No evolutionist believes that men evolved from apes. They believe that apes and men evolved from a common ancestor. Of course the whole idea of evolution contradicts the Bible and it isn't even supported by science. Here are some good sites where you can learn more about this subject:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/

 

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

 

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

 

We live in a culture in which evolution is accepted as proven science and is rarely questioned. I used to believe it because that is what I was taught in school. However most of the "proof" for evolution consists of claims that cannot be proved or verified. If you visit those sites you will find that there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it but most are either unaware of the evidence or ignore it or try to explain it away.

 

 

I've never accepted evolution -- have always been a Genesis person. And a 24/7 person , too. And That isn't even very popular.

 

I'm familiar with the three sites you've listed.

 

The common ancestor happened something like 500,000 years ago or so? And before That?!

 

And some say that people have DNA very close to that of chimps? maybe -- rather than apes?! People are People -- not a series of mutations that took place over millions or billions of years to become humans like we are now.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, there was one tiny thing practically invisible that landed from outer space on a bunch of rocks, splitting it in two. One day they stumbled across each other and one said to the other, "Hi......you come here often?'" And the other thing told it to shove off. That's when it reared its ugly head and became an ape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, there was one tiny thing practically invisible that landed from outer space on a bunch of rocks, splitting it in two. One day they stumbled across each other and one said to the other, "Hi......you come here often?'" And the other thing told it to shove off. That's when it reared its ugly head and became an ape.

 

 

 

Hmmmm -- an interesting story. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The family of great apes includes five extant species. Namely: Orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and us.

 

As a general rule, species will evolve so as to adapt to their environment. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to suppose that widely seperated groups of the same species will evolve in the same way, if their environments are sufficiently different. In fact they don’t, and if enough time passes during which two groups evolve seperately, they will eventually diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed. At that point speciation has occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The family of great apes includes five extant species. Namely: Orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and us.

 

As a general rule, species will evolve so as to adapt to their environment. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to suppose that widely seperated groups of the same species will evolve in the same way, if their environments are sufficiently different. In fact they don’t, and if enough time passes during which two groups evolve seperately, they will eventually diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed. At that point speciation has occurred.

 

 

 

Are we included in that group because we're all mammals / great apes -- which whales should also be included because they are also mammals?!

 

Only problem with That is that apes are animals and people are People. Apes would be considered part of the land animals that were created in Genesis 1. After all the various animals were created, Then God created man. Was was given dominion over the animal world.

 

It can be noted, though, that chimps , gorillas, etc are still being produced as are people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we included in that group because we're all mammals / great apes -- which whales should also be included because they are also mammals?!

 

The great apes are a subgroup of mammals, not the other way round. The five species which make up the great apes are grouped together because they are genetically very closely related.

 

 

Only problem with That is that apes are animals and people are People. Apes would be considered part of the land animals that were created in Genesis 1. After all the various animals were created, Then God created man. Was was given dominion over the animal world.

 

Even though we stand in a special relationship to God, my suspicion is that the objection some people have to being categorised as animals has little to do with theology, and a lot to do with emotion.

 

It can be noted, though, that chimps , gorillas, etc are still being produced as are people.

 

So? Are we on to that old fallacy about a dog never giving birth to a cat? No Latin speaker ever produced French speaking progeny, but here we are today, with precious few Latin speakers in France, and all Frenchmen speaking a language which evolved from Latin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though we stand in a special relationship to God, my suspicion is that the objection some people have to being categorised as animals has little to do with theology, and a lot to do with emotion.

 

It has nothing to do with emotion but with the fact that we believe what the Bible says.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The great apes are a subgroup of mammals, not the other way round. The five species which make up the great apes are grouped together because they are genetically very closely related.

 

 

 

 

Even though we stand in a special relationship to God, my suspicion is that the objection some people have to being categorised as animals has little to do with theology, and a lot to do with emotion.

 

 

 

So? Are we on to that old fallacy about a dog never giving birth to a cat? No Latin speaker ever produced French speaking progeny, but here we are today, with precious few Latin speakers in France, and all Frenchmen speaking a language which evolved from Latin.

 

 

 

Isn't language in a different catagory?! God created 'language' at the Tower of Babel -- people were determined that they were smart enough to build a tower that would reach heaven. God chose to confound the basic language that everyone had been speaking. So God 'created' the various languages. He also gave people the ability to be linguistically gifted. Some of us only learn one language -- others learn multiple languages. And, yes, over time, some languages Have died out. People don't speak Hebrew or Greek -- Latin is still taught, though not especially spoken.

 

However birds only chirp, frogs have their own sounds, horses theirs, pigs, their own. But you Don't hear pigs talking horse language. Birds don't bark. Dogs don't chirp. Cats Meow, they don't bark. AND they don't learn human languages. People can mimic the sounds of various animals, but animals don't mimic human's -- with the exception of parrots. Parrots actually Can mimic human language.

 

So -- animals and humans Are on a different linguistic level. People have Both written and spoken language. Animals have only audio capabilities.

 

And it's Also a fact that dogs never give birth to cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People don't speak Hebrew or Greek...
That will be news to people in Israel and people in Greece.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That will be news to people in Israel and people in Greece.

 

 

Guess I've never given any thought to What language was spoken in those countries. I honestly thought that Hebrew and Greek are 'dead' languages. Or is it Latin that isn't spoken any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess I've never given any thought to What language was spoken in those countries. I honestly thought that Hebrew and Greek are 'dead' languages.
I was kind of poking fun at you. While it is true that modern Hebrew and Greek are not the same as classical Hebrew or Koine Greek, native speakers\readers can no doubt follow the text.

 

Or is it Latin that isn't spoken any more.
Correct, no one speaks Latin as their native language.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Isn't language in a different catagory?! God created 'language' at the Tower of Babel -- people were determined that they were smart enough to build a tower that would reach heaven. God chose to confound the basic language that everyone had been speaking. So God 'created' the various languages.

 

The evolution of the romance languages from Latin is something which happened well within recorded history, so there is really no debate there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The evolution of the romance languages from Latin is something which happened well within recorded history, so there is really no debate there.

 

 

So - where Is the debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? Would not all the apes have evolved into men? I know it's too logical! Mark

He didn’tevolve from apes. He is an ape, along with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? Would not all the apes have evolved into men? I know it's too logical! Mark

He didn’tevolve from apes. He is an ape, along with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

According to some experts -- the DNA is Similar. But not exactly the same. And that's according to an evolutionary development chart.

 

Hopefully we can tell the difference between a human being and an ape or the others that you've listed.

 

Besides -- Genesis says that God created man / Adam separate from the animals world.

 

Back tracking from us -- people -- people beget People. One generation at a time.

 

There's a great deal of difference between the animal world and human beings.

 

And, orangutans produce more of their same kind as do gorillas and chimps. One generation at a time -- they produce more of their same kind.

 

And, we -- people get together with other People and give birth to more little people like us who grow up to become the next generation. God's plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? Would not all the apes have evolved into men? I know it's too logical! Mark

He didn’tevolve from apes. He is an ape, along with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

It's been a Long time since you've been around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RdrEm
Posted (edited)

There is always the possibility that Gen. 1:25-26. could be understood to mean that man was created along with all other mammals and then God "evolutionarily speaking", took 'the creature 'Man' and made it in God's own image. In other words, made man capable of thinking in a similar way to the way God thinks and acts, with a 'Spirit' and a 'moral centre' and a sense of 'Identity'.

 

"And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The word used for 'make' in 'make man in our own image' is not necessarily implying 'creation from nothing'. It also is used of a Potter's Work, which involves transformation of materials already existing, into a 'creation' of the Potter's intention and invention. The materials that comprise the pot are not in that instant 'created', but the artifact is a 'creation' of the potter, since it conforms to the image the potter had in his mind, to create.

 

A similar thing might apply to the creation of mankind, 'in the image of the Divine Potter's mind'. God may have simply said to himself "Let us take 'man', and make him in our own image, rather than any of the other creatures that are all evolving, according to my plan".

 

The Adam and Eve story is a separate issue, it may not be a historical account of the creation sequence, in fact it contradicts Ch. 1 in many points, it may be a 'spiritual' and mythic, (i.e hidden meaning), account of the introduction of 'Sin' and the advent of shame and fear into the human psyche, and its disastrous effects upon mankind's relationship with their creator. It certainly cannot be denied that something seems to have gone wrong with human relationships and our spiritual development, regarding knowing and doing God's will for us. "Thy will be done, on earth" is a key part of the problem that Jesus addresses in the Lord's Prayer.

 

By the way can anyone tell me how to use the Bible text reference hover feature. I would have liked to put Gen.1:25-26 up with this feature but cannot figure out how to do it.

 

Edited by RdrEm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RdrEm
1 hour ago, RdrEm said:

There is always the possibility that Gen. 1:25-26. could be understood to mean that man was created along with all other mammals and then God "evolutionarily speaking", took 'the creature 'Man' and made it in God's own image. In other words, made man capable of thinking in a similar way to the way God thinks and acts, with a 'Spirit' and a 'moral centre' and a sense of 'Identity'.

 

"And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The word used for 'make' in 'make man in our own image' is not necessarily implying 'creation from nothing'. It also is used of a Potter's Work, which involves transformation of materials already existing, into a 'creation' of the Potter's intention and invention. The materials that comprise the pot are not in that instant 'created', but the artifact is a 'creation' of the potter, since it conforms to the image the potter had in his mind, to create.

 

A similar thing might apply to the creation of mankind, 'in the image of the Divine Potter's mind'. God may have simply said to himself "Let us take 'man', and make him in our own image, rather than any of the other creatures that are all evolving, according to my plan".

 

The Adam and Eve story is a separate issue, it may not be a historical account of the creation sequence, in fact it contradicts Ch. 1 in many points, it may be a 'spiritual' and mythic, (i.e hidden meaning), account of the introduction of 'Sin' and the advent of shame and fear into the human psyche, and its disastrous effects upon mankind's relationship with their creator. It certainly cannot be denied that something seems to have gone wrong with human relationships and our spiritual development, regarding knowing and doing God's will for us. "Thy will be done, on earth" is a key part of the problem that Jesus addresses in the Lord's Prayer.

 

By the way can anyone tell me how to use the Bible text reference hover feature. I would have liked to put Gen.1:25-26 up with this feature but cannot figure out how to do it.

 

Apparently I have discovered that to get the Hover Text one just has to type in the reference and, 'hey presto' it comes up automatically once one's post is accepted in the forum. A bit like being saved really. It was all done for you by someone else on Good Friday. Yay! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RdrEm said:

The Adam and Eve story is a separate issue, it may not be a historical account of the creation sequence, in fact it contradicts Ch. 1 in many points

How does this account contradict chapter 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RdrEm
22 minutes ago, theophilus said:

How does this account contradict chapter 1?

Ch. 1: Original state of earth. = Watery Chaos.
Ch. 2: Original state of earth = Waterless waste, no vegitation.

 

Quite a big difference between 'Watery Chaos' and Waterless waste without vegitation.

 

Ch. 1: Creation = Six separate operations each of one day.
Ch. 2: Creation = No time scale whatever.

 

Ch. 1: Order of Creation = :
(a) Light.
(b) The firmanent - heaven.
(c) Dry land - earth, separation of land from sea.
(d) Vegitatuon - three orders.
(e) Sun - moon - stars
(f) Birds and fishes
(g) Animals and man (male and female together).

 

Ch. 2: Order of Creation =:
(a) Man, made of dust, with breath of Yahweh.
(b) The Garden, Paradise - to the east - in Eden.
(c) Trees of every kind, including the Tree of Life and the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
(d) Animals, beasts and birds. No mention of fishes.
(e) Woman, created out of man.

 

Ch.1 has man and woman created last on the 6th day, together, after all other creatures.
Ch.2 has man created first, before all other creatures, and Eve created last, after Adam has named every creature on earth as it paraded past him, having failed to find a mate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RdrEm said:

Ch. 1: Original state of earth. = Watery Chaos.
Ch. 2: Original state of earth = Waterless waste, no vegitation.

 

Quite a big difference between 'Watery Chaos' and Waterless waste without vegitation.

 

Ch. 1: Creation = Six separate operations each of one day.
Ch. 2: Creation = No time scale whatever.

 

Ch. 1: Order of Creation = :
(a) Light.
(b) The firmanent - heaven.
(c) Dry land - earth, separation of land from sea.
(d) Vegitatuon - three orders.
(e) Sun - moon - stars
(f) Birds and fishes
(g) Animals and man (male and female together).

 

Ch. 2: Order of Creation =:
(a) Man, made of dust, with breath of Yahweh.
(b) The Garden, Paradise - to the east - in Eden.
(c) Trees of every kind, including the Tree of Life and the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
(d) Animals, beasts and birds. No mention of fishes.
(e) Woman, created out of man.

 

Ch.1 has man and woman created last on the 6th day, together, after all other creatures.
Ch.2 has man created first, before all other creatures, and Eve created last, after Adam has named every creature on earth as it paraded past him, having failed to find a mate.

 

 

I always viewed chapter 1 of Genesis as a general overview of the creation and chapter two gives the details. I am of the "old earth" persuasion so I have alway understood part of the account in Genesis amounts to a re-creation. You have given me new fuel to study which parts are which. I had imagined the "gap" between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, but I shall study this further.

 

7072.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RdrEm
Posted (edited)

@deade

Hi: I'm Chris.

 

Ch. 1: Order of Creation = :
(a) Light.
(b) The firmament - heaven.
(c) Dry land - earth, separation of land from sea.
(d) Vegetation - three orders.
(e) Sun - moon - stars
(f) Birds and fishes
(g) Animals and man (male and female together).

 

Surprisingly to many modern minds, Ch.1 of Genesis is not so unscientific as many imagine it to be. It is of course not intended to be a 'scientific' chronological account anyway. It is intended by the author to establish the fact that (1) The creation itself is not God. (2) The creation, and everything in it is made by God. (3) Everything that God made is good.

 

These may not seem to modern minds to be very insightful statements for the author to have made, but at the time this was written it was universally believed that Sun, Moon and Stars were Gods. That the creation resulted from the ejaculation of a masturbating God. That human beings were created to be slaves to the multiplicity of God's etc. etc. So the author's assertive statements were revolutionary, innovative and divinely inspired, (since they compare favourably with modern scientific understanding), Whereas the popular notions that it refuted are now rightly regarded as fables.

Though not fitting exactly into a modern scientific schema, Gen.1:1-31, 2:4, accords well with scientific theory.

 

(1) First, 'Light'. Though the universe is thought to have started from a 'singularity' and expanded to its current extent, (and continues to do so), Initially the composition of the universe is thought to have been 3 times more hydrogen than helium with just trace amounts of other less heavy elements. This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang. This is such a relatively short time compared to the 14 odd billion years of the universe's existence so far, that the author of Genesis chapter one can be considered correct in his assertion that the first significant perceptible evidence of Creation, was Light. Before that 'Darkness was over the face of the deep', which is a pretty neat poetic way of describing the state of the early universe.

 

The author's observation that the earth was 'without form and void' is also interesting in that at the creation of the universe and until about 4.5 billion years ago , when the solar system came into existence, the earth was 'formless matter' spread across the Milky way galaxy, yet to be 'gathered' by the gravitational forces of Sol our solar systems star, we nowadays call The Sun. Also our oceans were scattered in the same way among the many billions of comets, asteroids, meteors and other celestial objects composed of H2O and geological impurities, eventually circling the Sun before some of them bombarding the earth and delivering the earth's oceans and all water, after it had cooled enough on the surface to sustain water in a liquid or solid state.

 

(2) The Firmament, (heavens). Here we have a slight difficulty in interpretation. The author's understanding of what he meant by 'the firmament' was a solid dome separating the earth from the heavens. Firmament Scientifically we no longer have that concept, but it was universally accepted in the author's day and therefore necessary for him to include it as a fundamental item created by God and not therefore to be confused with God Himself. One might well say though, that the scientific account of the way in which water got 'delivered' to earth, once it had cooled and formed, describes much the same sort of scenario as the Genesis author envisaged. There being a separation between the water that existed, and still exists, in space, and the water that came under the gravitational pull of the earth and has ended up in our oceans.

 

(3) Dry Land, separation of seas and land. It is scientifically accepted that at some previous time ALL earth's land masses were ONE large land mass, and that tectonic drift accounts for the positions of the continents today, and the existence of mountain ranges, volcanoes, earthquakes etc. So the author of Genesis got that about right. It is also scientifically predicted that the continents will eventually join up again to form one large land mass.

 

(4)  Vegetation. The first form of complex life, vegetation was largely responsible for producing the oxygen in our atmosphere, without which the higher forms of life on our planet could not exist. Once the oceans and dry land became established, plant life would have been the first form of life to have existed and started to evolve.

 

(5) Sun, moon, stars. Here we have a slight problem from the scientific point of view. We see the formation of Earth as being a process starting some 4.5 Billion years ago when the Sun 'switched on' and the solar system developed under it's gravitational influence. By that time the stars had existed for 10 billion years or so. They produced the elements the universe is made up of. Our sun being a relatively new comer on the block. The moon is thought to have been created by a collision between earth and another celestial object. This happened long before oceans existed on earth, profoundly affected the earth's rotational speed, direction, axis and 'wobble' and has now an essential affect upon earth's rotational stability and its tides. From the point of view of someone on earth though, as the writer of Genesis was, the stars, moon and sun would only have been visible from earth after the oceans had cooled, water vapour cleared and our atmosphere stabilized.

 

(6) Birds and fishes. It is generally accepted that life began in the oceans and only later populated the land. Birds and fishes are descended from the most ancient of all life forms. It is not surprising then that the genesis author singled them out as a 'first' for living creatures.

 

(7) Animals and man. Finally, we have the author of Genesis describing the final stages of the 'evolutionary process' God has set in motion and is currently overseeing. From the finite lifespan of the author's perspective, God does this all in a single day, God can do that, he is not bound by time and we now know enough about relativity and 'space-time' to realize that the 24 hour Genesis timetable is not essential to understanding the author's thesis:

 

That God has sequentially arranged all this and we are 'The people of His pasture and the sheep of his hand'.  Ps.74:1,  Ps.79:13, Ps.95:7-8,  Ps.100:3, Jer.23:1-4. Even in evolutionary terms, 'Be ye sure that the Lord he is God : It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people and the sheep of his pasture'. (Psalm one hundred, verse 2, Book of Common Prayer.)

 

 

Edited by RdrEm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy