Creationism and Evolution are both wrong!

by Robert Miller
(Australia)

The Origin of Man can be solved by observing the origin of a male. A male can only come into the world through a female. He always has and always will. Therefore, the very first male must have come from a female. Why does the Bible say the exact opposite?


This means, in her history, she had both male and female characteristics. And because she had both characteristics, her offspring would have had both, too.

It is only through a devolution that we now have both males and females.

Do you want proof that this is the case?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Gen 1:27). These are the Sons of God. This chapter is interrupted by the creation of a second Adam, but continues on at Gen 5:1. Note that there are no wives mentioned in the generations of Adam (as they were not necessary).

The creation of the second Adam (Gen 2) shows the woman being created from Adam, who is male and female. This is devolution.

The chapter of the Fall of Man (Gen 3), is paraphrased in Gen 6:2, and 5. 'That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose'. 'And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually'.

With this insight, the more arcane statements and stories in the New Testament begin to make sense. For example, the Virgin Birth, 'there is no marriage in Heaven', 'a man should not marry', 'whomsoever is born of God, his seed remaineth in him', 'woman, what have I to do with thee, etc.

So, all sexuality (including heterosexuality) is a sin, therefore, we are all sinners.

This fundamental truth is the core of Jesus' Gospel of the Truth, the Way, and the Life.


Comments for Creationism and Evolution are both wrong!

Click here to add your own comments

Oct 20, 2014
Robert Miller
by: Paul (Webmaster)

Robert added another comment to this page. I deleted it and banned him. His comments, besides being bizarre, have nothing to do with evolution vs. creation. He's just using this comment page for his humorous theological idea.

I didn't mind allowing a couple of his comments because I thought readers would find it as humorous as I did. I am not, however, going to allow him to continue to post.

Oct 14, 2014
Romans Chapter 7
by: Robert Miller

Romans 7:10,11,14 expresses quite clearly the dilemma Paul was facing regarding the
commandment 'to be fruitful and multiply'.

If he follows the law, it only allows sin to
enter his body, 'And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.'.

He now knows, through the doctrine he has received, that the commandment only applies to
spiritual generation (the Tree of Life), and not carnal generation (the Tree of Knowledge),

'For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.'.

Paul and Jesus recommend that 'men should not marry', and 'should make themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of Heaven's sake'. That is, they should become celibate (non-sexual), 'to
become as little children'.

What has celibacy to do with Heaven?

The reason is, if the male is non-sexual, it will allow the female to resurrect her dormant
male sexual characteristics ('the two become one'), and bring forth her own offspring
through spiritual generation (the Tree of Life).

A reversal of the Fall of Man, if you will.

And so, once again Heaven will reign on earth, and their will be a true Brotherhood of Man.

You can now see that the New Testament is intricately linked to the story of Creation in
Genesis 1-6.

Hope that clears that up.

Oct 11, 2014
Have you ever wondered?
by: Robert Miller

Have you ever wondered -

Why the male has enshrined himself, in Religion and Law, as the head of the female (his creator)?
If this is so natural, why must it be enforced? And why must she be suppressed (sometimes, brutally)?

Why, when Adam and Eve are cast out of Paradise (Heaven), and told that they can return if 'they eat from the Tree of Life', is this never referred to again in the Old Testament?

Why did Jesus take 21 years between teaching the teachers on the Temple steps at age 12, to calling the priests outright hypocrites and liars at age 33 ('You have shut men out of Heaven' ' and laid up wealth for yourselves'!).
Was it because he 'had to much time on his hands'? Or because he wanted to be sure he was right?

He was right. And he still is.

Oct 10, 2014
Maybe I missed something
by: Robert Miller

Sorry, that should read, 'I would say that the degeneration through descent would have been caused by unnatural relations WITHIN AND between each generation. That's what Genesis indicates in the Fall of Man, and the resulting curse of Eve.
So, the timeline would be as follows-
Ancestor (male and female) produces Ancestor (male and female). This is called 'to eat from the Tree of Life'.Ancestor (male and female) with Ancestor (male and female) produces Females. Ancestor (male and female) with Female produces Males. Males with Females produces males and females. The 3 preceding generations are called 'to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'.
Hope that clears that up.

Oct 10, 2014
Maybe I missed something NEW
by: Robert Miller

Sorry, it's mentioned also in Gen 2. Eve is created from the original Adam, who is male and female.
So, the correct genealogy would be -
Ancestor (male and female), then females, then males.
I would say that the degeneration through descent would have been caused by unnatural relations between each generation. That's what Genesis indicates in the Fall of Man, and the resulting curse of Eve.

Oct 10, 2014
Maybe I missed something
by: Anonymous

You did miss it. It's paraphrased in Gen 6:2 and 5.

Oct 10, 2014
Maybe I missed something
by: Dave

Where did the female come from and how did she become pregnant?

Oct 10, 2014
Judgment
by: Robert Miller

Evolutionists will have a hard time refuting my assertions. Darwin, himself, says all living organisms have a common ancestor. In regards to Man, I'm saying that males and females must have had a common ancestor and that ancestor was male and female. I'm also saying that, logically, the female is higher up the evolutionary ladder than the male.
Creationists will have a hard time refuting my assertions as they are backed up by direct quotes from the Bible (although, they are conveniently interpreted by the Church, as to give the male superiority over the female).
Bring it on!

Oct 09, 2014
Judgment
by: Paul

No need to. I'll leave your theory to other people's judgment.

Oct 09, 2014
Wow! by Paul
by: Robert Miller

I cannot argue with that because you did not say anything.

Oct 09, 2014
Wow.
by: Paul

I can only say, you have too much time on your hands. Sorry, just being honest.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Creation Argument Invitation.

spacer