[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ara / builders / dempart / hisrol / mde / strek / xivlg ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: c432deed6b9a081⋯.jpg (83.54 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, u3a526ndrjr11.jpg)

2e0bf1  No.753561

So I saw something that totally shed new light on Creationism to me. Actually every Christian believes in a form of "Youth Earth Type" creationism. The first example is simply the first miracle that Jesus performed - He turned water into wine. Wine is something that is aged, and appears as it is aged. If you gave that wine to a "scientist" to analyze, they would say this had been produced around 2 years ago or something. But Jesus produced it right then and there, with the appearance it was old, but it wasn't. Literally every Christian believes this. Same with the the loaves of fish and bread, etc.

This is actually something even an atheist would presume God or even just some magical being could do - produce something out of thin air. If say I told you that someone said some words and the out of thin air produced a fish out of nowhere, would you be like…"Hmm really? Let me see that fish?" So I give you the fish and you're like "Liar! This fish is clearly 2 years old!". Like that in no way disproves that the person made that fish appear from nothing.

I mean does anyone doubt Jesus could have said, "Tree, appear!" and a big tree would appear? Would you say no that's impossible cause the Tree looks like 26 years old? I'm sure that Tree would have tree rings around it indicating it's age and stuff too… so what right?

Now considering that basically every Church Father truly did believe that the days of creation were literal, like a miracle, 6 days (or shorter, like with St. Augustine), and even St. Thomas Aquinas saying it's literally 6 days, despite pagans and other people (even until recently) thought that the Universe was Eternal - why is this so hard to believe that God just created a world like bam! Like he booted up a VM image or something.

In addition, the whole idea of "Dark Matter" seems to actually bolster the idea that the Big Bang theory is nonsense. They still have literally no idea what this is, and have to include it in order to make it plausible. It's actually surprising, since they come at it from a completely dogmatic stance that there is no God and no supernatural forces, they're sort of forced into a corner like this.

Now I do have some questions though - namely with the appearance of what seems to be Dinosaur bones (is this Leviathan etc?) and what appears to be sub-Human type skeletons. Any explanation for those and how it fits into a more literal view of Genesis? Thanks!

d65f9f  No.753564

Evolution is a process that's still occuring. So in a way, the skeletons would be the same as the rings of the tree.


2e0bf1  No.753569

>>753564

Let's say we don't accept macro evolution either. Any other explanations? (I think macro evolution causes some issues with Adam and Eve and other things)


d65f9f  No.753570

>>753569

God put them there as some form of test, or esoteric Book of Enoch-like pre Adam and Eve scenarios.


2e0bf1  No.753575

>>753570

While I know that's the common YEC explanation, it just doesn't seem artistic or beautiful enough. The earth being young does sound super beautiful to me, for reasons I can explain later, but in short that well there was not that long between the beginning of the world, Christ and then end of the world. In addition, while any length of the existence of the world (which is finite) compared to the afterlife (infinite) is negligible, it does matter for points within the finite space itself, when certain keypoints happen.

God is all about creating things beautifully, so you know if there was 200,000 years of humans running around, and then around 2000 years of post Christ, it just seems pretty strange. Or if say the world ends after another 200,000 years, it seems bizarre that people after 200,000 years, given how short are collective memory and degradation of information is in general, to have to remember one event that happened 200,000 years ago (if the coming of Christ was that far along). It also makes it seem extremely distant and impersonal in a sense, and just not all that beautiful.

That's just my estimation and all, and my feelings so far, but just wondering if again anyone had some theories on the so-called fossils, apart from the YEC stories about they being tests.

I have heard that they are being poorly represented and are not actually skeletons of dinos, or of pre-humanoids, but wondering if anyone here has done some research on this topic.


d65f9f  No.753579

>>753575

You honestly shouldn't do theology on the basis of beauty.


2e0bf1  No.753584

>>753579

Nah, actually I think it's the best way to do it, but I understand if you don't want to. Anyways not really the topic of it. Otherwise this will just derail into another topic.


823531  No.753621

What we know of science could just be allegories of something deeper.


986a99  No.753623

>curse of adam and sin brings death

>lineage of adam to Christ

Why is this so hard? Death is also THE end to science, the basis of our faith is rising from the grave, if you believe in the consensus of learned individuals of academia (most of whom are of the synagogue of satan) over the words of your God then what good is your faith?


90b6fb  No.753624

>people honestly think that Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-23 are the same events

>The entire planet earth is the garden Eden

Read it again then you'll realize that the YEC renders the text contradictory because the sequences of creation, and doesn't explain where Cain's wife came from.


e4a338  No.753670

File: f37ba55fa38cc17⋯.png (114.41 KB, 872x558, 436:279, Genesis.png)

>>753561

Good on you OP.


29ea7d  No.753841

>>753624

You're right on that, but Cain's wife was actually a sister of his. 100 and something years went by after the birth of Cain and Abel.

Its a Dogma of faith that all humans that ever lived came from Adam.


a00e37  No.753872

>>753624

>>753841

It is very, very rare for the OT to mention daughters. The "begats" are almost always father to son(s). Eve didn't even have a name until after the fall. Until then, she was just "the woman". Adam could have had 2 dozen daughters and not one would be named.


822188  No.753878

>>753841

>but Cain's wife was actually a sister of his

I refuse to believe humanity is the result of mass incest. There were many people of many humanish tribes long before 6000 years ago.


4692f0  No.753882

>>753878

What do you base this on?


a332d7  No.753884

>>753878

Incest is bad because it accelerates the buildup of genetic defects. But what if I told you Adam and Eve had no genetic defects?


2fecc5  No.753949

File: 1a0ef8c796c7f39⋯.jpg (24.96 KB, 350x350, 1:1, 14479689_10154436605361070….jpg)

>>753878

>denying the historicity of Adam and Eve

>denying consequently the Original Sin.

>going against the Church teaching because some atheist scientists interpreted the results of their findings the way they wanted too

>thinking that science is the truth and not an approximation to natural phenomenon


90b6fb  No.754348

>>753841

>>753872

Judging the fact that Genesis chapter 1 focuses on Creation as a whole while chapter 2 is about the creation of Eden afterwords (due to the different order of event of creation), we could speculate the origin of man in 1:26-28 was different from Adam in 2:7 as a two distinct happenings. (What's also interesting is that the former man had the role of dominating the animals meanwhile the latter was an agriculturist. Like the comparison of Cain and Abel)

If that's the case, then Cain's wife may have originated from the "first men" of Genesis 1:26-28. Then again, it's more probable for the author of Genesis to support >>a00e37's reasoning.


2fecc5  No.754451

>>754348

>we could speculate the origin of man in 1:26-28 was different from Adam in 2:7 as a two distinct happenings.

Actually we can't.

The man Genesis refers to is Adam. That can be know by comparing the words in the original language or something so I've heard.

And also Pius XII in Humanis Genaris confirms that the bible is actually referring to the literal Adam and other interpretations aren't allowed in the Catholic Church.


9ed545  No.754457

>>754451

>the bible is actually referring to the literal Adam and other interpretations aren't allowed in the Catholic Church.

Then the catholic church is forever wrong.


ecba26  No.754458

>>754457

Yes, but not this time


0aadea  No.754467

>>753884

I bring this up every time someone brings up the incest argument, and it's almost always ignored.


9ed545  No.754470

>>754467

Because it’s a dumb argument. It means there must have been serious genetic damage done for their descendants to eventually become tiggers. Having to keep patching up holes like this to fill all the logical inconsistencies is the telltale sign of a lie.


b119e0  No.754473

>>754470

Incest actually does explain how "tiggers" could have developed so rapidly, especially if they were to miss out on the anti-incest stopgag around Moses' time.

Incest + thousands of years + population isolation + rapid generational cycle + tropical environment = tiggers


2fecc5  No.754489

>>754457

>Tfw modernists are even worse than Baptists.


9ed545  No.754498

File: 3e72d563ca3d2d8⋯.jpeg (210.57 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 47FD8FDD-C670-489C-80A8-A….jpeg)

>>754473

There were tiggers during Jeremiah’s time so they would’ve had to evolve within 3500 years after Adam and Eve. That’s a fairly short amount of time for such extreme genetic deviation. Maybe demonic powers at play could explain the acceleration. Maybe that’s why Africa is filled with satanic witchcraft and tiggers are so sinful. It’s disturbing to think about because that would make them literal LOTR orcs.


76bdc2  No.754533

File: dd717779b3de418⋯.jpg (160.19 KB, 1300x727, 1300:727, original.jpg)

>post flood picture

Look at these wtpin' weebs, can you believe the orcs haven't evolved in 3500 years?


2fecc5  No.754548

>>754498

>Maybe demonic powers at play could explain the acceleration.

Falling for the Mormon bait on tiggers.


9ed545  No.754551

>>754548

I don't have the slightest clue what Mormans believe. I was just entertaining how the silly creationist theories could be possible.


f7b3e7  No.754553

was poligamy a thing in genesis times? And given they lived hundred's of years it could mean a 700yo man taking his 60th 16yo virgin qt wife, a model that could help explain the rapid/unusual diversification? Or am I just being silly and there's no logic to that thought?


2fecc5  No.754559

>>754553

>was poligamy a thing in genesis times?

Yes. Hell even king David had several wives and that's way after genesis.

>, a model that could help explain the rapid/unusual diversification

I don't know if current models would allow it.

But biology is a rapid changing science. The 19th century biology is laughable so I imagine 21dt century biology is gonna look stupid to 22nd century humans.


90b6fb  No.754611

>>754451

>And also Pius XII in Humanis Genaris confirms that the bible is actually referring to the literal Adam and other interpretations aren't allowed in the Catholic Church.

Not.Ex.Cathedra.


75e92e  No.754658

>>753884

Draw of "luck"? Look at Ptolemaic Dynasty of egypt: the essentially "weeded" out "bad" genes such that brother-sister-incest-pharaoh didn't produce "inbred" offsprings. its about probability, really. also, factor epigenetics, it further "perturbs" the probability


75e92e  No.754659

>>753561

My theory was "save-and-load". when you play historical grand strategy games, you "load" a file. on a whim, you create a "world" thats thousands years old, even though it was loaded in "few minutes" irl. such that God's "loading time" was "Day" as per Genesis, but the "actual, "scientific"" time is millions, billions, etc. It sounded pretty reasonable, but I havent talked about this subject with anyone irl.


3daa67  No.754665

>>753561

Fallen angels were corrupting all flesh on the earth via their offspring, which may involve time travel.

Their main goal was to counterfeit the imago dei as a progression of blood from ape to man so that mankind will become a slave race that denies God.


19d4d7  No.754688

>>754665

I swear everyone has their own nephilim fanfic at this point. Probably jewish subversion since jews love the book of Enoch so much.


7e4afc  No.754859

>>754498

You know the domesticated Fox was bred in only 20 years? Different phenotypes, behavior, and skull shape from the wild fox.


f7b3e7  No.754870

>>754571

Thanks for this m8, I was aware and wasn't really asking for it's justification though, more asking if it was a thing in Genesis times (as opposed to David's for e.g.) when human's were first being fruitful and muliplying and diversifying. I ask becuse There was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Tracy, Stacy and Colette. Did the patriarchs have multiple wives? I remember Abraham I think had a son by his servent rather than wife iirc? (Don't know my OT well yet) which isn't the same I don't think is it.


f7b3e7  No.754871

>>754870

>Abraham I think had a son by his servent rather than wife iirc?

Hagar and Sarah that's it


c4579a  No.754874

>>754859

This is what intense selective pressure does. Also consider that back then in the days of Noah, humans were extremely collectivistic, which itself can act as another mode of intense selective pressure by placing societal conditions that favor certain attributes in a sort of negative feedback loop kind of thing - you want to have sex with people that have this trait because it's socially encouraged, and it gets more socially encouraged because your parents had sex for that reason.

Tigger traits are traits that could easily have been the result of such a selective spiral. Smart tiggers are nails that stick up so they get the hammer. Inbreeding and social hierarchy jockeying spiral into hyper aggression (see Arabs for another example) and a tendency for muscular development that favors appearance over substance (hence why tiggers can get so big so fast when working out, but they crumple like paper tigers in a fight).


21a20e  No.754875

>>753561

Kent Hovind has answers for pretty much any question related to creationism, I suggest looking up his channel on YT.


023ce9  No.754878

Dino bones were only found around the 1900 AD, but don't question it otherwise you're crazy.


f42a6c  No.758221

>>753561

>why is this so hard to believe that God just created a world like bam! Like he booted up a VM image or something.

I love 8chan


399d92  No.758242

>>753564

Species to species evolution is still unproven.

Carbon dating is horribly inaccurate.

Fossils are formed quickly, not over hundreds of years. There's a place in England that fossilizes teddy bears in a matter of months.

Marco Polo recorded seeing "dragons" or "serpents."




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ara / builders / dempart / hisrol / mde / strek / xivlg ]