The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

The evolution theory says that we evolved from apes
and the bible says we are created in gods image, so why are humans and chimps genes so closely related with 98% of the same genes. Or does this matter at all. Hope this makes some sense

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744

I'm not sure what the exact percentage is but we also share something like 90% of our genes with worms. It takes very little variation in the genetic code to make very large external changes. Much of the genome I have heard is even un-used, or turned off. I'm no expert but it's interesting that the majority of the genetic code is dedicated to just basic life functions.

I offer that for free as it is probably worth nothing.

Andy K.

Quoting, why do you think that "in God's image" has anything to do with how we look or even our genetic make-up? Why would it have anything to do with our ancestry?

Being created in God's image usually refers to the presence of a soul, the ability reason and/or to think in spiritual terms. These God created within us, whether it was something that arose during the evolutionary process in only humans (as God intended) or (as I believe most likely) was the result of the event described as "God breathing" his Spirit into mankind.

It has nothing to do with morphology, as if God has a genetic code, much less arms and legs.

Yeh, Vance, I don't recall God saying that any of the other creatures were created in His image.

I generally asoociate the "image" with the immaterial part of man.

Semper fi

God is Spirit, and we must worship Him in spirit and truth.

So I think His image has more to do with the Spirit than the physical.

The body, with all its genetic complexity, could be thought of as just a support system, or maybe a hotel.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Come on Cobra, How about "vehicle" like a muscle car. Give me some petrol.

semper fi

I have never ever heard anyone use the word image in speaking of anything except physical likeness. Just like Seth was in the image of his father Adam.
Why are the most basic truths trampled on by philosophers?

_________________
All bible references are KJV. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Amos 3:7 (NIV) Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

Interesting ... I have never heard anyone seriously suppose that man created in God's image meant a physical likeness!

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Is there anyone who really thinks that God has some corporeal body with arms, legs, etc. That is very strange to me.

Well make it that red Corvette you want, happy.

I have heard the view that this is a physical description in churches that interpret the scriptures very literally -- such as ones who see Genesis 2 as describing an actual event in which God, with His hands, formed man from clay.

Perhaps this is one of similarities of a Christian and an Atheist.

A Christian will see the human body as temporary carrier or support system or hotel for the soul or spirit. The soul/spirit is what we really are. The soul/spirit is eternal and the body is not.

An Atheist will see the human body as temporary carrier or support system or hotel for the DNA. The DNA is what we really are. The DNA is eternal and the body is not.

The Atheist substitutes the created for creator, just as idol worshipers of old did.

Well, there may be few flaws in the analogy, but it is something to think about as happy shifts gears on that red Corvette.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Maybe it could be a theophany (One of the many manifestations of God) of sorts that we are created in the likeness of God! I know its sort of a stretch but the text does say;

Ge 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (KJV)

1:26 Then God said, "Let us make47 humankind48 in our image, after our likeness,49 so they may rule50 over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth,51 and over all thecreatures that move52 on the earth. (net)

And it also says; let us

Another thought! Would a soul/spirit have an image? Maybe different from that of a body?

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Thoughts on the image of God in man...

Firstly man is a single being in multiple persons, just like the triune God is. By this I mean that Adam (man) is comprised of male and female. Husband and wife are seen as a single entity by God.

Secondly each individual has a spirit (or heart), mind & body (or strength). In my understanding mind & body comprise the soul, and it is only the spirit which is eternal. God breathed the "breath" (spirit) of life into Adam so that he became a living soul.

So the image of God in man is "plural" at both the corporate and personal levels. I think this is very appropriate to our relational God.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

True, the body dies, for both the saved and the unsaved. But in the resurrection it gets replaced with a glorified body. I'm not sure that what we really are is "just" spirit. My theory is that the spirit is the eternal bit of all men, but we are meant to be eternal beings of spirit and body. It is one tragedy of the unsaved that they spend eternity minus a body.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

This is ever a fascinating topic to me. A couple of points I would get on the table for scrutiny:
- In "the garden" and for a long time thereafter, YHWH physically manifested Himself. Apparently the form that He took was not so shocking to Adam and the woman. Later however, He took on some manifestations that would set anyone to a quivering gasping jello blob

- I like to think, and assert, that the Bible presents us ONLY the record of the race of Adam, defined as the first man that God Almighty breathed His own Breath of Life into. Get the distinction? Man, as defined by scripture, has a different definition than "Man" as defined by secular science. If the, shall we say, YHWH'ist MAN overlapped with other hominids, so be it... the Bible didn't give a lot of info on this although I personally think you CAN see this overlap in scripture. [another thread]

- Man's language skills were Given in the same Breath that animated him and the archaelogical and anthropologic records seem to bear this out.
* Personally I am utterly fascinated with this concept; that Adam's language did not develop gradually but was immediate, but that we do not know what this language was. I wonder if his language changed abruptly when he sinned? By the time we pass Babel.... the language, whatever it is/was, is lost. At least I THINK it lost. Then think about this: a Holy Spirit endowment sometimes results in a "language" being suddenly manifested. Paul said, by implication, that he did not use such language in communicating with other people at all, yet said he was thus endowed "more than you all", and he said he rather "pray in a tongue, my spirit prays" and so was prone to "pray in the spirit" and "sing in the spirit". ....

- Jesus Breathed His Breath of life into his immediate followers..... re-creation. Personally, I think this constituted the "new birth" initiation into the earth. I don't think it was mere symbolism.

- As to DNA, pop science has a lot of us thinking that there is great weight to be put on "similar" or "exact" DNA matchups. I question this. I participate in a genealogical DNA project that has worldwide tentacles. The more I learn about the science, the less I think there is anything exacting about it. It is a way of gauging the statistical probabilities of a blood relation within a timeframe. That's all it is. It is possible for two brothers of the same pair of parents to have mismatched DNA.

- Despite some well-meaning but ill-informed christians being on the Evolution bandwagon, the glaring absence of scientific data illustrative of inter-species evolution is overwhelming. Intermediate transitional forms should be everywhere in the fossil record, literally littering the sediment layers, and living ones should be everywhere obvious today. Intraspecies development can be called evolution and is observable but it is not always progressive [lower to higher]... that assertion can be scientifically validated.

- Even in the "old earth" view, there is mathematically not enough time for anything to evolve into the complexity of Man. This is an old fact that is almost NEVER discussed by Evolution proponents. The invention of "sudden convulsive leaps" of evolutionary progress was 'created' to answer this glaring problem.

- By this point, secular civilization SHOULD BE having the discussion not about earth-centric evolution but about Which Being From Where seeded the earth with its life forms.

Zapp, I tend to agree that Scripture, if it is referring to a literal, single person "Adam", then it could be referring to a single family line or even those who he "breathed" life into, distinct from the rest of the hominid line. But the problem is that we have entirely modern humans going back up to 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, complete with art, burial, symbolic thinking, and others things we consider uniquely "human" as opposed to just hominids. As for your thoughts on evolution, I am afraid you have been misinformed.

First of all, there should NOT be loads of "transitional" fossils in the sense you mean them, and second, the sense you mean them is probably entirely erroneous. It really sounds like you are getting your information from a Creationist website or book. Keep in mind a simple truth: getting information about evolution from a Creationist source is like getting information about Christianity from an atheist source.

First of all, every species is transitional. It is not as if there are "real" species and then something that comes in between. Every species is, and has to be, a full and completely viable species on its own. It is not as if species A is trying to become species B and in between is something like A 1/2. No, it is like a long line of the entire alphabet. Sure, D can be considered a transition between B and F, but then F could be considered a transition between D and H.

Second, your prediction that there would be tons of fossils that show transistions between two known species is also wrong for a number of reasons. First, only a tiny, tiny fraction of living things ever fossilize. We only have a very small sampling of what has actually lived before (even though that sampling has shown us an amazing number of species not alive today). So, given this paucity of available fossils (in relation to what must have actually lived), it is amazing that we have any fossils showing a species that (in retrospect, mind you) would qualify as "tranistional" by even the most rigorous Creationist standards.

Third, when you factor puncuated equilibrium into the equation, we have even LESS likelihood of seeing those species that show such traits. And, btw, PE also answers your other issue regarding the amount of time needed.

Fourth, even with all these handicaps, we actually do have a very large number of "transitional" fossils. I can give you a list if you like.