Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?

[Wesley Briggman]

Has anyone speculated, using his imagination, at what point in any Theistic Evolution theory did a man become composed body, soul and spirit?

I am posting these questions to illuminate the lunacy, IMO, of any evolutionary theory related to the origin of mankind.

 

[Dave G]

As to epochs, Adam appears only at the dawn of human civilization, constrasted with the dawn of the animal kingdom which commenced at a very different time in earth's history.

According to the Bible, the dawn of the animal kingdom was literally the same day as when Adam was created ( in the case of cattle and land-dwelling animals and insects ) or the day before ( in the case of fish and water-borne animals, plus the birds of the air ).

Plants, trees and grass were on the 3rd day.

IMO, the bible should never be seen as a biology or scientific text book.

I disagree.
When it speaks about things scientific....like the heavens and the earth, which He created...
Then we as Christians should not have any trouble tuning out the scientists who claim to know more ( or differently ) than God does.

I suppose that what surprises me the most, @cjab, is not that many people who aren't Christians are completely ignoring ( or even suppressing, at times ) the truth of God's word on this subject...
But that there are professing Christians who seem convinced that God did not do as He says He did in Genesis 1.


To all:
My friends, trust the Lord.
Trust His words.


He really is worth believing and trusting in.

 

[Ben1445]

Has anyone speculated, using his imagination, at what point in any Theistic Evolution theory did a man become composed body, soul and spirit?

I am posting these questions to illuminate the lunacy, IMO, of any evolutionary theory related to the origin of mankind.

That was what I thought at first but you threw me off when you doubled down on it.

 

[cjab]

According to the Bible, the dawn of the animal kingdom was literally the same day as when Adam was created ( in the case of cattle and land-dwelling animals and insects ) or the day before ( in the case of fish and water-borne animals, plus the birds of the air ).

The same day? But how long is a day? The word "day" (Yom in Hebrew) is not defined in Genesis by reference to any created thing, but solely by reference to the beginning and end of God's creative phases. These are "God" days, spiritual days, phases, orders of creation. Yom in Gen 1 as inferring 24 hours isn't made out when the first usage of Yom in Gen 1:5 precedes the creation of Sun and Moon.

By your usage of Yom, you infer God's creatives acts are governed by creation. Yet Yom has a far more extensive usage. In the bible, many words have nuances depending on their point of reference, whether heaven or earth. Surely the initial reference of Yom is "God's work". "God rested on the 7th day" cannot mean that God waited for the earth to revolve 6 times on its axis. Such is not inherent to the text. Rather, God rested after 6 creative phases - God's 6 orders of creation. Earth is at most the image of heaven. What is in heaven, including heaven's reference points, are not bound by anything on earth.

Sure, there is an earlier, saurian age to the animal kingdom: again this refers to order. I am told that the Hebrew "tanniyn" (creation on the 5th day) is extensive, and is also used to refer to crocodiles, serpents (i.e. reptiles) elsewhere in scripture. Also birds are reptiles. These have little social cohesion beyond the family. Mammals including ungulates came later on, in a subsequent creative phase (whales are ungulates that originally lived on land, and migrated from land into the sea). These have a higher possibility of social cohesion and belong to a more intelligent and advanced order of animal life. Finally man, but biologically speaking, man is little different from other mammalian animals. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA.

Plants, trees and grass were on the 3rd day.

I disagree.
When it speaks about things scientific....like the heavens and the earth, which He created...
Then we as Christians should not have any trouble tuning out the scientists who claim to know more ( or differently ) than God does.

But are you confident that you know what God is communicating to you? When you sit in judgment on scientists, may be it is you who have misunderstood what Gen 1 is communicating?

I suppose that what surprises me the most, @cjab, is not that many people who aren't Christians are completely ignoring ( or even suppressing, at times ) the truth of God's word on this subject...
But that there are professing Christians who seem convinced that God did not do as He says He did in Genesis 1.

As somene with a degree in science, I can assure you that if there is an anti-God agenda in science, it is limited to some anti-God individuals, not science in general. Science follows wherever the evidence leads. All scientific theories are being peer-reviewed all the time. Do Christians allow their own views to be peer reviewed? The history of the church (cf. Galilei, Copernicus, etc.) demonstrates that there has been a decidedly anti-science agenda in parts of the church for half a millennia or so, even to the point of persecution, most of which has centred on misunderstanding Gen 1.

 

[cjab]

Having never seen God manifested in my sight, I would just believe that when He said that He made us like Him and in His image, that every part of us is made in His image.
You may have discovered something that I never will. You may know what God looks like. I can’t say that I do. I just know what He said about us. I find that when God says something, we usually are unable to comprehend how deeply true the statement is. You seem to be taking a face value statement, that seems to involve all of mankind, physically and spiritually, and erasing half to fit your personal beliefs in regard to the physical.

To you, "image of God" may seem to involve "all of mankind, physically and spiritually," but I read it, that if God is Spirit (John 4:24), then the primary denotation of "image" is spiritual: i.e. having innate capacity for coverse with God (cf. Adam) and subsequently, retaining the ability to put on the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), which animals are never called upon to do. The requirement to have converse with God also seems to be the fundamental dichotomy between man and animals.

As to physical aspects: memory, the ability to learn, to use tools, recognition of others, the senses, even elementary morality (saving life of those in distress), etc., animals can be and are seen to be commensurate with men.

Not sure how monogamy shows spiritual connection with the likeness of God. Also, God only made one woman for Adam. not much choice in the matter for Adam. In the case of mankind, I don’t know what your definition of adherence is but I don’t see it in regard to marriage or a lot of other things that God wants man to adhere to.

See my point above. I see it that Adamic monogamy was a conditio sine non qua to being able to converse with God. I tend to the view that there were other women in the world (of which the bible says nothing because the Garden of Eden is focused entirely on the spiritually elevated Adam and his family, which alone was ordained as distinct from "animals"). Only later, after Adam's expulsion from Eden, are all homosapiens formally elevated by God to Adam's status (cf. God's covenant with Noah in Gen 9:4,5). I see it that Eve was intended as the spiritual peer of Adam, as well as the biological partner.

I suppose if you don’t believe what God said in the Bible, you would have the tendency to say that “the Bible doesn’t literally mean what it says. It means spirituality what I think it does.” At this point you have no credibility in any discussion because your Bible POV is subjective. You may feel like you have some validity but you can’t deny what the Bible says and expect people to believe you when you explain the Bible.

I would reflect that critique on yourself who mandates mankind as being "physically in the image of God." I don't find your sentiment in the bible; and point out that Ezekiel's vision in Ez. 1 is hardly human in terms of its physics, or its biology. Neither does the idea of God as a "life giving spirit" "over all, through all, and in all" (Eph 4:6) suggest physicality.

This seems to say that God has nothing to do with the physical. I think that to assume that the Bible is accurate in the spiritual but not in the physical is to say God doesn’t know what is going on or how He made the world.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,* so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

(*not by random evolutionary processes)
What people don’t understand is that for evolutionary processes to work, you don’t just need a missing link. You need two of them. And you need two of them to evolve into the same compatible kind. Not one into a fish and the other a frog.

"Random evolution" has nothing to do with any theory I personally espouse. And yet randomness is seen in many biological processes: many things appear random in scientific terms, such as which of numerous off-spring make it into adulthood etc. However, I credit God as always in control.

so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

What spiritual things do you see?
What kind of religion is this that you are teaching?
How far are you willing to take your belief that the Bible is strictly spiritual?
You don’t believe that there was a literal flood?
How do you spiritually fit into this verse?
2 Peter 3:5-6
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

If the Bible relates to God, why does God tell that giant fib in Genesis 1 if it didn’t really happen? You have a miserable religious conundrum that is not able to be reconciled.

What "fib" are you referring to? I don't believe in any fib. Rather I believe that humans have imposed fabulous and non-contextual interpretations on Gen 1 that the words cannot bear. An error of modern Christians is to impute very technical and precise meanings to words in Gen 1 (and in many other places in the bible) that don't reflect the original Hebrew (or Greek).

Consider the many nuances to Yom. When God says in Ps 2:7 "The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," what does the word Yom mean in this context?

Further, if God rested on the 7th day, the seventh rotation of the earth on its axis, then what did God do on the 8th day? If you maintain Yom must mean one rotation around the earth's axis, the question is valid. (I don't have to answer this question, because I don't interpret Yom as you do.)

 

[Dave G]

The same day? But how long is a day?

God's word defines how long a day is:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Exactly as long as they are now.

But are you confident that you know what God is communicating to you? When you sit in judgment on scientists, may be it is you who have misunderstood what Gen 1 is communicating?

Yes, I am confident that I believe God's written word, and that is how He communicates truth to those that have believed on His Son.

In addition, I don't sit in judgment over any man...
The Lord does and will.

But I can and do believe His every word on every subject, and I encourage all who profess the name of Christ to do the same.

 

[Dave G]

As somene with a degree in science, I can assure you that if there is an anti-God agenda in science, it is limited to some anti-God individuals, not science in general.

I have degrees as well, and they are all in Applied Sciences.

But with respect to the Scriptures, those man-made degrees that were conferred upon me some 25 years ago really don't matter, do they?
I received my degrees from men, most of whom did not and do not believe God's words...
Which doesn't really surprise me all that much.

After all, God's word is believed by faith, while modern science ( not all scientists, but "science as a whole" ), for the most part, is filled with people who do not claim to believe it ...
Because it requires faith in the promises and declarations of a God who is a Spirit and cannot be seen by men.

To put it differently,
Man's science is limited to the senses and focuses on what can be observed by the senses...sight, sound, touch, taste, etc.
While God and His word cannot be observed by those same senses.


This brings us back to faith, my friend...
Science and faith can be ( and often are ) 180 degrees contrary to one another.

 

[Dave G]

Science follows wherever the evidence leads.

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

The vast majority of scientists, from my perspective, have a long history of completely dismissing the Bible ( and even scientific evidence that agrees with it ) as authoritative in any sense of the word...
While we as Christians believe the Bible and what it says.

I'm sorry if you find the idea of someone trusting God's words over man's words to be offensive,
but in my case, I'd much rather trust Genesis 1 regarding how the earth was created, than any book ever written by men;
Because again, God, who cannot lie, used His apostles and prophets to write a Book for His people to believe the words of, learn from and to take comfort in those same words of.


That said, I wish you well.
May God bless your studies in it, and as you consider what I've written, sir.

 

[Ben1445]

To you, "image of God" may seem to involve "all of mankind, physically and spiritually," but I read it, that if God is Spirit (John 4:24), then the primary denotation of "image" is spiritual: i.e. having innate capacity for coverse with God (cf. Adam) and subsequently, retaining the ability to put on the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), which animals are never called upon to do. The requirement to have converse with God also seems to be the fundamental dichotomy between man and animals.

As to physical aspects: memory, the ability to learn, to use tools, recognition of others, the senses, even elementary morality (saving life of those in distress), etc., animals can be and are seen to be commensurate with men.


See my point above. I see it that Adamic monogamy was a conditio sine non qua to being able to converse with God.

What has the amount of wives to do with conversing with God?
Adam had one wife and walked with God until sin, not until he got a second wife.
David communed with God and had several wives. (Which he was not supposed to do, according to the mosaic Law.)
You have some weird ideas.

I tend to the view that there were other women in the world (of which the bible says nothing because the Garden of Eden is focused entirely on the spiritually elevated Adam and his family, which alone was ordained as distinct from "animals").

Where did they all come from?
God said he formed Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib.
The NT says that in the beginning there were only two people. The point being made by Christ is that the opportunity for having multiple wives was not even available

Only later, after Adam's expulsion from Eden, are all homosapiens formally elevated by God to Adam's status (cf. God's covenant with Noah in Gen 9:4,5).

You will have to explain that one. You are so far out there that I don’t follow your logic.

I see it that Eve was intended as the spiritual peer of Adam, as well as the biological partner.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but pat yourself on the back for it and score yourself one for your modern mentality. (That is probably all you wanted was points for your social justice statement. Award them to yourself. Otherwise explain why that statement is relevant.)

I would reflect that critique on yourself who mandates mankind as being "physically in the image of God." I don't find your sentiment in the bible; and point out that Ezekiel's vision in Ez. 1 is hardly human in terms of its physics, or its biology. Neither does the idea of God as a "life giving spirit" "over all, through all, and in all" (Eph 4:6) suggest physicality.

Well, Jesus is God and He looked like another person. He is also described in Revelation. But John likely only spiritually turned around and didn’t really see anyone while spiritually on Patmos.
I’m not sure why I am even responding here.
You believe only what you want to and call anything else that you can’t believe a spiritual thing. You don’t have the ability to please God because you don’t believe that he actually did what he said he did.

"Random evolution" has nothing to do with any theory I personally espouse. And yet randomness is seen in many biological processes: many things appear random in scientific terms, such as which of numerous off-spring make it into adulthood etc. However, I credit God as always in control.

In a spiritual way, of course.

What "fib" are you referring to? I don't believe in any fib. Rather I believe that humans have imposed fabulous and non-contextual interpretations on Gen 1 that the words cannot bear.

You cannot bear them with your “oppositions of science, (falsely so called).

An error of modern Christians is to impute very technical and precise meanings to words in Gen 1 (and in many other places in the bible) that don't reflect the original Hebrew (or Greek).

Consider the many nuances to Yom. When God says in Ps 2:7 "The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," what does the word Yom mean in this context?

Further, if God rested on the 7th day, the seventh rotation of the earth on its axis, then what did God do on the 8th day?

He talked with Adam.
I don’t have this on the record but if you can’t figure that out, don’t call yourself a student of the Bible.
Creation was six literal days of God speaking the world into existence. Why is this difficult to believe, if you believe God is in control of everything science classifies as random?
You have formulated your own definition of God whose testimony Scripture does not bear.
If on the seventh day God rested because He was finished creating, He doesn’t need to do anything on the eighth day. This is a question posed by foolishness. You cannot even tell what you, yourself have done every day of your existence and you ask anyone to give an account of God. What a dumb question. But I answered it for you anyway.

If you maintain Yom must mean one rotation around the earth's axis, the question is valid. (I don't have to answer this question, because I don't interpret Yom as you do.)

You couldn’t begin to. You have no comprehension of who God is, because you don’t believe what God said about Himself.

 

[Ben1445]

As somene with a degree in science, I can assure you that if there is an anti-God agenda in science, it is limited to some anti-God individuals, not science in general. Science follows wherever the evidence leads. All scientific theories are being peer-reviewed all the time.

Well, let me be the first to assure you that your assurances mean nothing. Science is a term that has to be defined. If you mean observable, testable, repeatable, yes, that is science and there are no contradictions in Scripture to science.
If by science you mean the consensus of the “scientific community,” then we are not talking about science, merely a bunch of people who collectively believe/agree about something.
And yes, consensus is accepted over reality even when they are in conflict.
Here is an example for you that I came across the other day. The title was intriguing so I watched it. It has to do with AI and evaluation of scientific data. It is worth the time.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The seven 'days' of Genesis is a time-compressed description of the evolution that took place over millions of years, according to a lecture by 9Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union:

(right click, save link as, for direct download of audio file) CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science

38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plants before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."

1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."

Theism belongs to religion; evolution belongs to science. Commingling them contaminates both of them—making the Bible appear to be a book of absurdities and science to be messing around with Tinker Toys.

 

[cjab]

Well, let me be the first to assure you that your assurances mean nothing. Science is a term that has to be defined. If you mean observable, testable, repeatable, yes, that is science and there are no contradictions in Scripture to science.
If by science you mean the consensus of the “scientific community,” then we are not talking about science, merely a bunch of people who collectively believe/agree about something.
And yes, consensus is accepted over reality even when they are in conflict.
Here is an example for you that I came across the other day. The title was intriguing so I watched it. It has to do with AI and evaluation of scientific data. It is worth the time.

I don't have time to watch 18min videos.

What has the amount of wives to do with conversing with God?

I was primarily referring to Adam's recognition of the nature of the marital relationship, as a type of the relationship between mankind and God. (This in contradistinction to idolatry.) Heb. 13:4 affirms it to be foundational to converse with God.

Adam had one wife and walked with God until sin, not until he got a second wife.
David communed with God and had several wives. (Which he was not supposed to do, according to the mosaic Law.)
You have some weird ideas.

Just because David sinned doesn't mean he failed to grasp the Adamic view of marriage. On the contrary he did grasp it, and so was judged.

There isn't much we know about Adam in his pure state except (a) he conversed with God, (b) he held a right view of marriage and is cast as the originator of biblical marriage law.

Go figure.

Where did they all come from?
God said he formed Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib.
The NT says that in the beginning there were only two people. The point being made by Christ is that the opportunity for having multiple wives was not even available

The bible isn't a biology text book, nor is it a history of the origin of species. You're misreading it, if you expect it to answer such questions. It doesn't. By "living being" (1 Cor 15:45), I read it that Adam was the first homosapens imparted with spiritual life, and Eve was the mother of those with spiritual life. This is affirmed by Adam's lineage comprising many worshippers of the true God: Noah, Abraham, David etc.

You will have to explain that one. You are so far out there that I don’t follow your logic.

Why was a law against murder only instituted post-flood in Gen 9? You'll need to address that point first, before you cast aspersions against me.

The biblical evidence is that Adamites (descendants of Adam) were somehow elevated above the rest of the "human race" until the flood (some of the Sumerian cities are named after Adam's descendants). After the flood, all humans were attributed by God with the same status .

NB: archaeology uncovers different 8 species of "man" apart from homosapiens. It is likely other species were eventually all exterminated by homosapiens, in an evolutionary survivial of the fittest.

Just my working hypothesis for now. If you have a better theory, let's hear it.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but pat yourself on the back for it and score yourself one for your modern mentality. (That is probably all you wanted was points for your social justice statement. Award them to yourself. Otherwise explain why that statement is relevant.)


Well, Jesus is God and He looked like another person. He is also described in Revelation. But John likely only spiritually turned around and didn’t really see anyone while spiritually on Patmos.
I’m not sure why I am even responding here.
You believe only what you want to and call anything else that you can’t believe a spiritual thing. You don’t have the ability to please God because you don’t believe that he actually did what he said he did.


In a spiritual way, of course.

You cannot bear them with your “oppositions of science, (falsely so called).

He talked with Adam.
I don’t have this on the record but if you can’t figure that out, don’t call yourself a student of the Bible.
Creation was six literal days of God speaking the world into existence. Why is this difficult to believe, if you believe God is in control of everything science classifies as random?
You have formulated your own definition of God whose testimony Scripture does not bear.
If on the seventh day God rested because He was finished creating, He doesn’t need to do anything on the eighth day. This is a question posed by foolishness. You cannot even tell what you, yourself have done every day of your existence and you ask anyone to give an account of God. What a dumb question. But I answered it for you anyway.

You couldn’t begin to. You have no comprehension of who God is, because you don’t believe what God said about Himself.

However I am not answerable to you. And I'll have regard to Matthew 7:1-6 even if you won't, so on that basis adieu (for the rest of eternity).

 

[Ben1445]

I don't have time to watch 18min videos.

Ah yes!! The mark of a true scientist. The investigator. The person who looks at every angle, unless it takes 18 minutes.
Any scientific credibility that you had is gone.

I was primarily referring to Adam's recognition of the nature of the marital relationship, as a type of the relationship between mankind and God. (This in contradistinction to idolatry.) Heb. 13:4 affirms it to be foundational to converse with God.


Just because David sinned doesn't mean he failed to grasp the Adamic view of marriage. On the contrary he did grasp it, and so was judged.

Based upon your views, you could be mistaken and David could be showing us another spiritual view of marriage.
How can you know where to draw the line?
Are you sure that David was even a real person? If God didn’t do what he said in Genesis 1, are you sure that we were not given a story about David as an ideal to live up to with lessons to learn from?

There isn't much we know about Adam in his pure state except (a) he conversed with God, (b) he held a right view of marriage and is cast as the originator of biblical marriage law.

Go figure.


The bible isn't a biology text book, nor is it a history of the origin of species. You're misreading it, if you expect it to answer such questions. It doesn't. By "living being" (1 Cor 15:45), I read it that Adam was the first homosapens imparted with spiritual life, and Eve was the mother of those with spiritual life.

Since it is not a book of origins, how could you possibly believe that Adam and Eve were the first?
Darwin would surely be a more reliable source for that kind of information. Much more of a scientific text, eh?

This is affirmed by Adam's lineage comprising many worshippers of the true God: Noah, Abraham, David etc.

That proves nothing of what you have said.
Where are the people who had no spiritual inkling. The ones before Adam. Are they what you call Neanderthals?
I would find that sort of reasoning laughable since you would be basing their Spiritual condition on their physical appearance and condition.
How about after Adam? Philistines? People who can’t appreciate?

Why was a law against murder only instituted post-flood in Gen 9? You'll need to address that point first, before you cast aspersions against me.

The law against murderer was before the flood as much as in Genesis 9. What we find in Genesis 9 is not a new law. It is a penalty for breaking that law and an identification of who owns the responsibility of meting out that punishment.
God talked with Cain. Did you gather from that that Cain was okay for killing his brother?

The biblical evidence is that Adamites (descendants of Adam)

As opposed to the otherites (the others “science” made up to make application of God’s word mystical.

were somehow elevated above the rest of the "human race" until the flood (some of the Sumerian cities are named after Adam's descendants). After the flood, all humans were attributed by God with the same status .

Show me chapter and verse for that one.

NB: archaeology uncovers different 8 species of "man" apart from homosapiens. It is likely other species were eventually all exterminated by homosapiens, in an evolutionary survivial of the fittest.

“Science” is still proudly displaying Lucy, a most ridiculous fraud of “homosapien.”
Europe, for a short period if you want to see your science in action.

Just my working hypothesis for now. If you have a better theory, let's hear it.

God made everything by the Word of His power, in exactly the way that the Bible says.
And I would expect that if God made everything and is in control of everything as you say, it would be nothing for Him to talk about reality in the same frame of being as He made us, rather than record a bunch of physical words with spiritual significance. (Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not removing the spiritual significance. I’m just not removing the physical significance as you do.)

However I am not answerable to you. And I'll have regard to Matthew 7:1-6 even if you won't, so on that basis adieu (for the rest of eternity).

Don’t judge me??
Best scientific cop-out I’ve ever heard!!

 

[cjab]

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

The vast majority of scientists, from my perspective, have a long history of completely dismissing the Bible ( and even scientific evidence that agrees with it ) as authoritative in any sense of the word...

But is the bible really "authoritative" in respect of scientific (i.e. carnal) matters? I suggest not. There is no evidence that the bible was ever intended to be read as a scientific text book. I believe the failure to identify Gen 1 as written from God's vantage, rather than man's vantage, is 100% of the problem.

The bible reports facts, but the facts are only set down from the POV of God's commands, and not science's discoveries. Ask yourself: what is going on in Gen 1? God is commanding, isn't that right?

Thus Gen 1 conveys the profounder truths, looking beyond the science. Gen 1 is about God's order of creation, from the vantage of God. It is God-focused, not science-focused. Thus day, morning and evening are defined as marking God's own creative phases, in the first instance. And so one sees from Genesis the importance of "light" to God, which governs everything, and the sources of light are set in place by God. Thus Psalm 136:8,9 refers to those things (sun moon, stars) that govern man-days, but not God. And also sky, land & sea & water, are set as boundaries in preparation for the commencement of life on earth - the goal of which is the creation of man.

While we as Christians believe the Bible and what it says.

That doesn't give anyone a license to interpret the bible in such a way as to defame men or God. And perhaps that is what YECs are doing.

I'm sorry if you find the idea of someone trusting God's words over man's words to be offensive,

But who appointed you to speak on behalf of God? Do you even know what the bible is really saying? Jesus accused the Jews of his day of diligently searching the scriptures, but completely failing to grasp what the bible was saying to them, in that they wouldn't recognize Christ (John 5:39-47).

How many usages of the Hebrew word Yom are there in the bible? Of all the different usages, how do you know which one is correct in Gen 1? Perhaps there is more than one usage of Yom. And don't say "I know what the word 'day' means in English." English is not Hebrew, and it's not Greek either. And there is nothing in the mere existence of any English translation to warrant or guarantee it as a correct translation.

Even if 100 translations all say the same thing, they might all be wrong, or at least sub-optimum in terms of conveying anything meaningful.

but in my case, I'd much rather trust Genesis 1 regarding how the earth was created, than any book ever written by men;

You have exposed your principal fallacy. Who said the bible is about HOW the earth was created? That is your belief, but it entails a huge assumption that I don't find made out by the text itself.

Because again, God, who cannot lie, used His apostles and prophets to write a Book for His people to believe the words of, learn from and to take comfort in those same words of.

That said, I wish you well.
May God bless your studies in it, and as you consider what I've written, sir.

What you need to be able to do is think outside the box, and grasp there are many inculcating all manner of nonsense about all manner of things: Ellen G. White for one.

 

[cjab]

I have degrees as well, and they are all in Applied Sciences.

But with respect to the Scriptures, those man-made degrees that were conferred upon me some 25 years ago really don't matter, do they?
I received my degrees from men, most of whom did not and do not believe God's words...
Which doesn't really surprise me all that much.

After all, God's word is believed by faith, while modern science ( not all scientists, but "science as a whole" ), for the most part, is filled with people who do not claim to believe it ...
Because it requires faith in the promises and declarations of a God who is a Spirit and cannot be seen by men.

To put it differently,
Man's science is limited to the senses and focuses on what can be observed by the senses...sight, sound, touch, taste, etc.
While God and His word cannot be observed by those same senses.


This brings us back to faith, my friend...
Science and faith can be ( and often are ) 180 degrees contrary to one another.

To be sure, there is fake faith, and fake science; and so everything can appear in conflict with everything else. But true science will be harmonious with true faith. Isaac Newton was interesting in this respect: as well as applying himself to science, which was quite likely in conflict with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church (which at that time insisted that heliocentrism was heresy as witnessed at the trials of Galileo), he also applied himself to fake faith, or at least, what passed for "faith," but which he found to be unscriptual opinions & translations passed on down the ages, e.g. by the Catholic church (cf. "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions etc.").

In Gen 1, I believe we have to contend in large measure with "fake faith" - e.g. the authoritarian opinions of Ellen G. White & the Catholic Church, which for all their pretension, were unable to distinguish the carnal from the spiritual.

I for one do not believe that Gen 1 is talking about the rotation of the earth on its axis of rotation, or about the earth being at the centre of the universe, or about any other strictly scientific matter. Man as the last and ultimate creature to be created is perhaps a "scientific" exception to Gen 1, but coincidence alone cannot infer Gen 1-3 concern science: rather they (obviously) concern the commands of God, the structures of the universe, and the order of creation, as viewed by God.

Evolution amongst species is continuing at a genetic level: there is nothing in Gen 1 which states that it wouldn't continue, because ultimately Gen 1 is not about science.

If you can provide me with the verse(s) that maintain, without possibility of refutation, that Genesis 1-3 primarily concern science, please do.

 

[Ben1445]

Do you believe that God made everything?
Your statements confuse me. I don’t actually know what you believe.

If you can provide me with the verse(s) that maintain, without possibility of refutation, that Genesis 1-3 primarily concern science, please do.

God existed before matter.

Psalm 90:1-2
Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 95:3-5
For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also.
The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land.
O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.

Hebrews 1:2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Job 38:1-13
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
When I made the cloud the garment thereof,
and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And brake up for it my decreed place,
and set bars and doors,
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Hebrews 11:1-3,6
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Show me where God says science has figured out life and God has figured out the spiritual realm.

You have exposed your principal fallacy. Who said the bible is about HOW the earth was created? That is your belief, but it entails a huge assumption that I don't find made out by the text itself.

Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1 Timothy 6:20-21
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Thus Gen 1 conveys the profounder truths, looking beyond the science. Gen 1 is about God's order of creation, from the vantage of God. It is God-focused, not science-focused.

But if it can’t get the science right, when God created science, why would you believe that it can get the spiritual right?
From the vantage of God??
As opposed to your temporary finite vantage??
You are carnally minded and can’t even understand the shallow thoughts of God. You deny God the glory due Him by declaring that Gen. 1-3 is only His perspective.
You don’t believe that the worlds were framed by the word of God? Then you will find it hard to please Him. If you lack the faith to believe what he says, you will lack the faith to do what He says.
You have created a god of your imagination who is limited by science. Science offers people buoyancy in the water.
In reality, science is limited by God. Jesus walked on the water.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Having a good understanding of Genesis is foundational to having a good understanding of the rest of the Bible. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible and hence it is studied today as a distinct body of biblical literature giving rise to some lengthy and very detailed commentaries exclusively on Genesis 1-11. The 648-page commentary on Genesis 1-11 by Clause Westermann published as a volume in the Continental Commentary series consists of a wealth of technical, objective data along with an academically solid analysis of the data. This commentary was first published in 1974 and therefore it does not consider any of the massive amounts of biblical research performed after that. The recently retired university professor Kenneth A. Matthews has given to us a more up to date but much less technical 644-page commentary on Genesis 1-11 in the Christian Standard Commentary series published by B&H Publishing in 2022. Matthews is an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention. Either of these two commentaries will introduce young earth creationists for the first time to a world that is very new to them.

 

[Deacon]

A quote from Matthews Commentary on Genesis.

The current creation-evolution debate shows no sign of abatement. The insistence on methodological naturalism that forbids arguments of ultimate cause, such as intelligent design, results in a hypothesis that cannot accommodate all the evidence science has discovered. Even the theoretical reconstructions by science include nonnaturalistic suppositions and entities, such as fields and quarks, so that one might say that “naturalistic explanation is an oxymoron.” For the apologist of creationism, the defense of a particular theory of creationism may divert the discussion from the validity of general creationism to a particular view of biblical interpretation that requires more demonstration than is necessary for the immediate apologetic purpose. In the present argumentative environment it is best to stick to the simpler road and show how what we know from the “Book of nature” points rationally to the omnipotent and all-wise Who. Ultimately we can proclaim with the apostles that this Infinite One can be known through the Incarnate Son who “is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17).

(2) Problems in Interpretation
Disagreement swirls among those who hold to the creationist’s premise, not about who? but about how? and how long? and when? So mammoth and complex is the discussion that we can only briefly refer to what we believe are the two central problems that underlie the diverse interpretations of biblical creation: (1) what is the proper relationship between Scripture and modern science? and (2) what is the literary genre of the Genesis description?

Mathews, K. A. 1996. Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. p. 106-107.

 

[Ben1445]

So mammoth and complex is the discussion that we can only briefly refer to what we believe are the two central problems that underlie the diverse interpretations of biblical creation:

(1) what is the proper relationship between Scripture and modern science?

Many aspects of modern science deny that God exists or is necessary. This is a severe hindrance to any “relationship.”
It does not make a relationship impossible. With a clear understanding of the fact that God made the world, I would not expect that God, who cannot lie, would tell us He made it in a different way than He actually did.
The question of how He made the world (the process by which it came to be) should be answered by the Creator.
The question of how He made the world (the processes by which it operates) is intended to be answered by mankind. The Creator told man to subdue the earth and have dominion over it.
If we will inspect the world from the standpoint of “How did God design the world to work,” we will be much farther ahead.
For the Christian, the real question is how much do I believe God? Do I believe Him to make misleading statements regarding the physical earth that He claims to have created?

and (2) what is the literary genre of the Genesis description?

Nonfiction.
Style? It’s not really that important what the style is, but it isn’t dry classroom lecture. God is a better teacher than your average trigonometry teacher.

Just my answers to the questions posed by Matthews.

 

[Ben1445]

Either of these two commentaries will introduce young earth creationists for the first time to a world that is very new to them.

Very new to us indeed. Most of us actually believe that God said what is physically, spiritually, morally, accurate. Most of us believe that the Bible is God’s word and not a collection of religious ideas. Most of us are not used to the idea of doubting God. Might I add that that is not a good habit to get into. It is the very opposite of faith by which we are told is necessary to please God. It is also very telling to me that at the same time we are told that we need faith to please God, the beginning of the world is mentioned and only understood by faith. Heb. 11
But you have to believe the Bible to agree with it. For all the people who want science to take the lead and tell the Creator how it works and how it was made, this is not living by faith.
No, I’m not interested in doubting God. It may sound foolish to you. I wouldn’t be surprised.