Posted on 02/26/2006 1:26:29 PM PST by Tim Long
Abraham saw the Pre-incarnate Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity.
The verse I think you are referring to is 1Tim.3:16, God was manifest in the flesh.
Then why does it mention the LORD (God the Father)?
No, because the 'sin nature' is passed down by the man, starting with Adam.
That is why Christ was virgin born, conceived by the Holy Spirit.
He was not in the line of Adam, but was totally human, being born of a woman.
Thus, Satan would be crushed by the seed of a woman, not the seed of a man. (Rom.5:12 Gen.3:15)
Why would you think the Lord only refers to the Father.
See 1Cor.12:3, Jesus is the Lord.
Thanks M-PI, I can't speak for Dr. Eckleburg but for myself I believe that we really are talking in Genesis about two different kinds of men, physical man and spiritual man, the latter having appeared 6000 years ago, and beginning the only real time that matters.
From your link:
Now, what about those experiments where some bacteria developed a resistance to substances over time due to mutations in their genes? Such mutations, which are mistakes in the genes, result from a loss of information (such as the loss of a control gene which regulates the pumping of the substance into the cell). Again, this is the opposite of evolution, which requires an increase in information if it were to occur.Like all too many things from Answers-in-Genesis -- and from anti-evolution sources in general -- this is a gross misrepresentation, and is better described as no-holds-barred propaganda than anything resembling actual reality.
It's flat wrong when it says that resistance-enhancing mutations are a "loss of information", it's being grossly dishonest when it tries to imply that the loss of cellular transport is the only kind of functional change which has been observed bringing about an increased resistanced to antibiotics, and it's just lying when it tries to convince the reader that there's anything different between these kinds of mutations and evolutionary processes, because there's not. The rest of the linked page is severely flawed as well.
In short, it's easily recognized as a load of crap by anyone familiar with the actual field. But of course, propagandists like AiG and other anti-evolution sources count on the fact that most readers won't be able to spot how badly they're being snowed.
This isn't the appropriate thread for it, so instead of posting detailed support for the things I've said in that critique, I'll just direct you here, to a post I wrote covering a lot of the same ground.
Trying to "learn" about science from anti-evolution creationist sources is as big a mistake as trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore, and for exactly the same reasons.
bttt
Peter Noone has met God? I knew I liked Herman's Hermits for a reason.
I appreciate your comments. I had written to Dick Fischer earlier this year after reading some of his writings on the internet while researching this important subject. I was intrigued by his perspective and hoped he could tell me more (he has a master's degree in theology).
Note these very interesting statements he made last week: "I personally have found more historical foundation for Genesis 1-11 than any other living human being. (The Library of Congress is a big help!)
Genesis appears to be relevant Hebrew history written in archaic Hebrew style. It’s about them – not us.
Our ancestors were still hunters and gatherers when they were growing crops, raising cattle, and carrying on trade. And I don’t see any glaring mistakes in Genesis One that needs our helping hands to save a semblance of integrity for the scientifically deficient, uneducated writer. .... Jewish scholarship can be as flawed as Christian scholarship. And to think that their privileged genealogical status makes them better Bible expositors by birthright isn’t necessarily true. .." ~ Dick Fischer - Sun, 19 Feb 2006 Genesis Proclaimed Association Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History www.genesisproclaimed.org
This is part of what I wrote in my letter to him on January, 2nd, 2006:
"...There are several versions of theistic evolution. I would have no problem with the one in which Adam and Eve are said to be real historical characters separately created by God - even though they [may be] _biologically_ compatible with other creatures who lived much earlier and evolved from there.
The dust was created and man was "formed" from it.
See Periodic Table of Elements: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488281/posts?page=89#89
That looks like two separate creations to me. What say you?
On 1/2/2006, Dick Fischer responded:
Hi [Matchett-PI], you wrote
That looks like two separate creations to me. What say you?
That’s not far off what I believe judging by what Scripture says. This is what I have said elsewhere.
Somewhere around the first century AD, Christian apologetics took a wrong turn. What had been handed down to the children of Israel as the history of their people beginning with Adam and Noah and Abraham in southern Mesopotamia in the book of Genesis was misinterpreted by the early Christian church fathers as the story of the creation of the first human beings. Here we are nearly two thousand years later and the church still hasn’t dealt with this obvious mistake.
Cuneiform inscribed clay tablets discovered in Mesopotamian excavations have given archaeologists a picture of a region almost totally unknown only a century ago. These inscriptions have provided insights into the history, religion, and even the racial characteristics of the people who lived there. And some of these writings appear to pertain to Adam himself. Adam, in all likelihood, was a historical personality who lived roughly 6,800 years ago.
The legend of Adapa who lived in Eridu, the first city built in southern Mesopotamia, resonates with passages in Scripture pertaining to Adam. Adapa is called “son of Ea (god)” which parallels Luke’s description of Adam. Could it be only coincidence that Adam was told "by the sweat of his face" he would eat "bread," and Adapa was a baker by trade; or that Adapa was deprived of eternal life by not eating or drinking the "food or water of life," while Adam was cut off from eating the fruit of the "tree of life"?
Regarded as a prophet or seer, Adapa had been priest of the temple of Ea at Eridu. He is described as "blameless," "clean of hands," "anointer and observer of laws." Could that also describe Adam, the first type of Christ? Also, Adam was taken from the ground; in the Hebrew: 'adam from 'adamah. How close phonetically is 'adamah to Adapa?
In literary Sumerian, the contrast "town and country" is commonly expressed by uru and 'adam, literally "town and pasture.” The connection with 'adam and the "ground" in Genesis is mirrored with 'adam and pasture land in Sumerian.
The Genesis flood at around 2900 BC terminated the Adamic race except for Noah and his family, decimated the nearby Sumerians, but spared the Egyptians to the south as well as all other populations scattered around the globe at that time, however, it was construed as a global catastrophe by our Christian forefathers meant to obliterate the entire human race and all the world’s land animals. This is probably the biggest mistake in Christian apologetics and persists to this day.
Since the Sumerians listed pre-flood kings and flourished after the flood, and the Bible in Genesis 6:4 mentions a pre-flood population of “Nephilim” (translated “giants” in the KJV) and refers to their descendants, the sons of Anak in Numbers 13:33, we could have figured out that flood survivors are mandated both historically and biblically. But we didn’t.
We should have discovered long ago that Genesis does not describe a global flood. Due to typical “Hebrew-speak” that uses "all" and "every" the way we would say “much,” “many” or
“some,” and the unfortunate mistranslation of some Hebrew words that have double meanings such as land and earth, and hills and mountains, we got it into our heads that the biblical flood caused universal destruction. An “olive leaf” (Gen. 8:11) would not have been available for picking had it been submerged for a year under seawater. What were we thinking?
The heyday of the ziggurats in Mesopotamia began after the flood as a means of surviving future floods. Ziggurat building lasted about a thousand years and ended when Sumer was destroyed around the time of Abraham. The Semite builders at Babylon got caught up in a building contest with the Sumerians that ended in confusion. Then, adding to the confusion, Christians interpreted that to mean that all human languages began at Babel.
In short, traditional Christian apologetics is totally fouled up from the beginning of Genesis through the eleventh chapter.
Biology books and anthropology books describe the progression of Homo sapiens. Genesis is simply the history of the line of promise leading to Christ.
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
bttt
Another reason creationists should not be doctors. Not for my family anyway.
These terms are used in the bible : we, and at times, Israelites, are flocks, or sheep, oxen are believing Jews, asses are Christians or scholars, and cattle, created on the 6th day, before spiritual Adam, (who was created later, which is why we have 2 accounts,) were men. These are the daughters of men that the sons of God, spiritual men, married. I know that scripture is of no private interpretation, but I feel that this is the case.
And vice versa.
I'm not fluent in Hebrew, but when you see "LORD" in all caps, I understand that refers to God the Father, and that "Lord" refers to Jesus.
I may be taking your comment the wrong way, but you believe that man had been evolving for years before he gained a spirit?
no, 2 differnt kinds of men, both created
What kinds of different men?
unspiritual and spiritual
But all men have spirits.
yes, but not all men are spiritual. Then of course today we are descended from Noah who was spiritual, remember.
So when you say spiritual and unspiritual, you just mean people who did or did not choose to follow God? By your mentioning of 2 separate creations, it sounded like you meant 2 separate races of men.
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.