• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?

cjab

Member
The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is highly complex with very many opposing views. My views are not based upon superstitions, hunches, or religious dogma; they are based upon the data with which I am familiar.

Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of prose literature that is radically different from that of Genesis 12-50 and the rest of the Bible.
The reason I find Gen 1:11 to be plausible in a non-scientific way, is that from the point of view of God's overriding interest in the earth and what happens on it, the commands of God in Gen 1:11 are not irrational if the earth is the pinacle or crown of everything created by God. Moreover, from the point of view of one hypothetically located on the surface of the earth, simply observing what is going on around him, the biblical account of creation is uncontroversial. And if Gen 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," reflects Day Zero, i.e. the ex-nihilio creation, then the "six days of creation" are plausibly seen to relate to the earth being fashioned by God to become a repository of human life.

I suggest that it is because the account is so plausible, that it seems to offer us science, and yet (to my mind at least) there is no science where the central concern of Gen 1:1-11, and the rest of the bible for that matter, is God's relationship with his creation.
 
Last edited:

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
The reason I find Gen 1:11 to be plausible in a non-scientific way, is that from the point of view of God's overriding interest in the earth and what happens on it, the commands of God in Gen 1:11 are not irrational if the earth is the pinacle or crown of everything created by God. Moreover, from the point of view of one hypothetically located on the surface of the earth, simply observing what is going on around him, the biblical account of creation is uncontroversial. And if Gen 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," reflects Day Zero, i.e. the ex-nihilio creation, then the "six days of creation" are plausibly seen to relate to the earth being fashioned by God to become a repository of human life.

I suggest that it is because the account is so plausible, that it seems to offer us science, and yet (to my mind at least) there is no science where the central concern of Gen 1:1-11, and the rest of the bible for that matter, is God's relationship with his creation.
As I wrote above, “Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of prose literature that is radically different from that of Genesis 12-50 and the rest of the Bible.” Genesis 12-50 is written in the genre of prose literature known as the “Historical Narrative.” That is, it is a supposed literal, historical account of actual events in past time. Genesis 1-11, on the other hand, is written in a genre of prose literature that is very similar to the genre of prose literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Surely, this was not an accident but God’s way of bringing to our attention the fact that Genesis 1-11 is NOT a literal, historical account of actual events in past time. Indeed, as early as Genesis 1:6-8 we read,

6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (NRSV)

Even on the first page of the Bible, we are told in these three verses that we are not reading a literal, historical account of actual events in past time but rather we are reading something much more akin to epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Even very early Christians were aware of this and wrote about it, but for eight centuries, Jewish Rabbis refused to believe the obvious. Today’s Jewish scholars of the Tanakh, however, take it for granted that Genesis 1-11 is not a literal, historical account of actual events, as can be seen in today’s best commentaries on Genesis by Jewish scholars of the Tanakh: Nahum M. Sarna, Ephraim A. Speiser, and Meir Zlotowitz.
 

cjab

Member
As I wrote above, “Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of prose literature that is radically different from that of Genesis 12-50 and the rest of the Bible.” Genesis 12-50 is written in the genre of prose literature known as the “Historical Narrative.” That is, it is a supposed literal, historical account of actual events in past time. Genesis 1-11, on the other hand, is written in a genre of prose literature that is very similar to the genre of prose literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Surely, this was not an accident but God’s way of bringing to our attention the fact that Genesis 1-11 is NOT a literal, historical account of actual events in past time. Indeed, as early as Genesis 1:6-8 we read,

6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (NRSV)

Even on the first page of the Bible, we are told in these three verses that we are not reading a literal, historical account of actual events in past time but rather we are reading something much more akin to epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Even very early Christians were aware of this and wrote about it, but for eight centuries, Jewish Rabbis refused to believe the obvious. Today’s Jewish scholars of the Tanakh, however, take it for granted that Genesis 1-11 is not a literal, historical account of actual events, as can be seen in today’s best commentaries on Genesis by Jewish scholars of the Tanakh: Nahum M. Sarna, Ephraim A. Speiser, and Meir Zlotowitz.
Who are "Jewish scholars" to tell anyone how to read the bible? I disagree with your technical English terms, which don't reflect the imprecise meaning of original language words, so much as later opinions. And you didn't mention when Gen 1:1-11 was originally written.

I disagree that it is not "literal" in that it refers to "literal" aspects of creation, and in an orderly, even quasi-historical, way from the POV of an observer on earth's surface. You are entitled to your secular approach to Gen 1:1-11 as "myth", but it is only interpretable as a religious writing. If you don't see it as that, or you don't fathom what God is trying to communicate by it, it will always be irrelevant to you.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Of course, I deny it—and so did the Church as a whole deny it until 1961.

Some ancient Jewish rabbis continued to believe into the 8th century A.D. that Genesis 1-11 was an accurate, literal account of actual historic events. Ancient Christian scholars, however, were writing at least as early as the first half of the third century A.D. that Genesis 1-11 is not and could not possibly be a literal account of any events. Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430) spent much of his Christian life attempting to reconcile the observable world that God had created with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Late in his life, he published a two-volume work on Genesis 1-4 with the title De Genesi ad litteram (Literal Meaning of Genesis) in which he wrote that that he had not succeeded in his endeavor. See also the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Volume 1 on Genesis 1-11 in which numerous ancient Christians are quoted in context to reveal their non-literal interpretations of the passages of Genesis that were of special interest to them.

With the publication of De Genesi ad litteram, the issue of the literalness of Genesis 1-11 was essentially set aside until 1961 when two men raised it to the forefront of a new movement called Young Earth Creationism. One of these men did not know even so much as the first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet and had never earned even so much as an A.A. degree from a junior college in any field of the natural sciences. The other man had studied geology and paleontology for one year but changed the focus of his studies to ancient and European history and graduated in 1948 from Princeton University. He then enrolled at Grace Theological Seminary and in 1951 he completed a course of study for a B.D. Together, these two men authored a book with the title, The Genesis Flood. Although academicians viewed it as rubbish, Christian fundamentalists with a very limited education have believed every word of it without ever fact checking it.

Do you believe that God’s creation of the earth in Genesis is an accurate, literal account of actual historic events where the Bible expressly portrays God creating a flat earth covered with a dome that had real, literal windows in it that God literally opened to allow the celestial floodwaters to fall to the earth contributing to the flood?

Every word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 is to be understood literally. The windows were real windows in a solid structure. On page 21 of his commentary on Genesis, the late John Skinner, Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).

However, hundreds of years earlier, the first five books of the Tanakh were translated into Greek giving us the first part of the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, Genesis 1:6-8 reads,

Gen. 1:6. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.
7. καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος.
8. καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.

The Greek word στερέωμα is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ, and expresses the concept of “the sky as a supporting structure, the firmament.” (BDAG, the italics are theirs). This Greek word is also found in Paul’s writings to express the concept of a “state or condition of firm commitment, firmness, steadfastness” (BDAG, the italics are theirs),

Col. 2.5. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμι, χαίρων καὶ βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. (NA28)

Col. 2.5. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, and I rejoice to see your morale and the firmness of your faith in Christ. (NRSV)

The Greek word στερέωμα is also found in a number of other ancient Greek writings where it always expresses the concepts of something solid, strength, firmness or steadfastness. Indeed, all hands (even the folks at Answers in Genesis!) freely admit that this Greek word expresses in Genesis the concept of a ‘solid, supporting structure.’

The Septuagint was the Bible of the Early Church until it was superseded by the Latin Vulgate. And, of course, what really matters is the choice of words used by the writers who penned the Tanakh—they used the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ that expresses the concept of the solid dome over the flat earth. For an excellent study of the first eleven chapters of Genesis as God gave them to us in the Hebrew language, please see the following:

Westermann, Clause. Genesis 1 - 11, German orig. 1972 (English translation by John J. Scullion, 1984 in the Continental Commentaries series, 646 pages).
Do you accept the witness of liberal and critical so called scholars over that of the Lord Jesus Himself?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
As I wrote above, “Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of prose literature that is radically different from that of Genesis 12-50 and the rest of the Bible.” Genesis 12-50 is written in the genre of prose literature known as the “Historical Narrative.” That is, it is a supposed literal, historical account of actual events in past time. Genesis 1-11, on the other hand, is written in a genre of prose literature that is very similar to the genre of prose literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Surely, this was not an accident but God’s way of bringing to our attention the fact that Genesis 1-11 is NOT a literal, historical account of actual events in past time. Indeed, as early as Genesis 1:6-8 we read,

6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (NRSV)

Even on the first page of the Bible, we are told in these three verses that we are not reading a literal, historical account of actual events in past time but rather we are reading something much more akin to epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Even very early Christians were aware of this and wrote about it, but for eight centuries, Jewish Rabbis refused to believe the obvious. Today’s Jewish scholars of the Tanakh, however, take it for granted that Genesis 1-11 is not a literal, historical account of actual events, as can be seen in today’s best commentaries on Genesis by Jewish scholars of the Tanakh: Nahum M. Sarna, Ephraim A. Speiser, and Meir Zlotowitz.
Jesus and the Apostles saw genesis as an historical and literal account of Creation, but you seem to hold liberal critical views in higher regard
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
If your view is correct, the death of Jesus on the cross was of no value and we are still living in our sins. If my view is correct, the death of Jesus on the cross was of infinite value and all true believers have been set free from their sins.
If your view is correct, the death of Jesus on the cross was of no value and we are still living in our sins. If my view is correct, the death of Jesus on the cross was of infinite value and all true believers have been set free from their sins.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
If your view is correct, the death of Jesus on the cross was of no value and we are still living in our sins. If my view is correct, the death of Jesus on the cross was of infinite value and all true believers have been set free from their sins.
If you deny that the Bible literally means what it says, (ignoring the obvious ie. the parable of the trees) why would your view hold more weight. You are chopping at the foundation. Why would anything else in the Bible from your POV be expected to be credible?
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Should we trust what God Incarnated said about Genesis account, or liberal critical scholars?
If the human being Jesus was a credible witness to the events in Genesis 1-11, he had knowledge beyond what was humanly possible. Therefore, he was not fully human and his death on the cross was a tragic but useless event. Indeed, the human being Jesus would have known only what he had learned from his family and other acquaintances with the sole excretion being what his fatter had personally made known to him. Had Jesus’ father made know to him that Genesis 1-11 was written in a genre of prose literature similar to the prose literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths and legends, the outcome would have been a bible very different from the Bible that we have today.

I have here in my home library only 31 commentaries on Genesis or parts of it and NONE of them were written by liberal critical scholars. Indeed, all of them with only one exception were written by men with a deep love for God and His word. The single exception was a woman, Ida Glaser, whose love for God and His word has so far resulted in her perusing and earning a D.I.C., M.Phil. in theoretical physics and a Ph.D. in comparative theology. She is currently employed Seconded to the Solomon Academic Trust, as academic director of the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies, Oxford.


I am a conservative, evangelical ordained Baptist minister and teacher who has been blessed by God with an excellent education. I am very much aware that people who have no education all too often look down upon and cruelly malign people who do. Hatred and severe jealousy are not limited to unbelievers, but are found even more often in professing Christians—very much to the harm of the Church. Do they care? No, of course not!
 

cjab

Member
I have here in my home library only 31 commentaries on Genesis or parts of it....
Keil and Delitzsch on Gen 1:6

"There is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass [or dome], a σιδήρεον, or χάλκεον or πολύχαλκον, such as Greek poets describe. The רקיע (rendered Veste by Luther, after the στερέωα of the lxx and firmamentum of the Vulgate) is called heaven in Genesis 1:8, i.e., the vault of heaven, which stretches out above the earth. The waters under the firmament are the waters upon the globe itself; those above are not ethereal waters."

Similar remarks are made by K&D vis-a-vis Gen 1:8. The initial issue seems to be that you insist on interpreting Gen 1:1-11 by reference to Greek secular "science." Sure there are plenty of commentaries that refer to it, but the question is, why is Greek secular science relevant to what antedated it? Moses antedated ancient Greek classical civilization by circa 500 years.

And if you allege that Gen 1:1-11 is not "Moses" but merely a Grecian or Babylonian-inspired redaction, are you not insinuating that Genesis isn't inspired?

The word "dome" doesn't appear in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and similarly doesn't appear in many other commentaries. How can it be so justified as to become the basis for your translation?
 
Last edited:

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
If the human being Jesus was a credible witness to the events in Genesis 1-11, he had knowledge beyond what was humanly possible. Therefore, he was not fully human and his death on the cross was a tragic but useless event. Indeed, the human being Jesus would have known only what he had learned from his family and other acquaintances with the sole excretion being what his fatter had personally made known to him. Had Jesus’ father made know to him that Genesis 1-11 was written in a genre of prose literature similar to the prose literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths and legends, the outcome would have been a bible very different from the Bible that we have today.
I don’t remember the last time I saw so many statements to reach a “non sequitur” conclusion. None of that was reality.

I have here in my home library only 31 commentaries on Genesis or parts of it and NONE of them were written by liberal critical scholars. Indeed, all of them with only one exception were written by men with a deep love for God and His word. The single exception was a woman, Ida Glaser, whose love for God and His word has so far resulted in her perusing and earning a D.I.C., M.Phil. in theoretical physics and a Ph.D. in comparative theology. She is currently employed Seconded to the Solomon Academic Trust, as academic director of the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies, Oxford.
Amazing sounding credentials that sound pretty liberal to me.

I am a conservative, evangelical ordained Baptist minister and teacher who has been blessed by God with an excellent education. I am very much aware that people who have no education all too often look down upon and cruelly malign people who do.
Persecution complex.

Hatred and severe jealousy are not limited to unbelievers, but are found even more often in professing Christians—very much to the harm of the Church. Do they care? No, of course not!
You are taking all of the arguments way too personally. If you think that you are discussing “science” with people who hate you and are jealous of you, your head is so swelled up with pride that your vision is affected and you can’t see clearly what is actually happening.

If the best you can do is cower in the corner and say people hate you when they only disagree with you, you require more education and I promise that no one is jealous. (I also don’t mean book education. It is education in reality that is lacking)
Sorry to be the first person to ever tell you anything like this. The world is a tough place and anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t hate you.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
If the human being Jesus was a credible witness to the events in Genesis 1-11, he had knowledge beyond what was humanly possible. Therefore, he was not fully human and his death on the cross was a tragic but useless event. Indeed, the human being Jesus would have known only what he had learned from his family and other acquaintances with the sole excretion being what his fatter had personally made known to him. Had Jesus’ father made know to him that Genesis 1-11 was written in a genre of prose literature similar to the prose literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths and legends, the outcome would have been a bible very different from the Bible that we have today.

I have here in my home library only 31 commentaries on Genesis or parts of it and NONE of them were written by liberal critical scholars. Indeed, all of them with only one exception were written by men with a deep love for God and His word. The single exception was a woman, Ida Glaser, whose love for God and His word has so far resulted in her perusing and earning a D.I.C., M.Phil. in theoretical physics and a Ph.D. in comparative theology. She is currently employed Seconded to the Solomon Academic Trust, as academic director of the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies, Oxford.


I am a conservative, evangelical ordained Baptist minister and teacher who has been blessed by God with an excellent education. I am very much aware that people who have no education all too often look down upon and cruelly malign people who do. Hatred and severe jealousy are not limited to unbelievers, but are found even more often in professing Christians—very much to the harm of the Church. Do they care? No, of course not!
Do you accept that Jesus was and is God in Human flesh, and as the Creator, so he would have had firsthand knowledge of what actually happened, as he was there int he beginning
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I don’t remember the last time I saw so many statements to reach a “non sequitur” conclusion. None of that was reality.


Amazing sounding credentials that sound pretty liberal to me.


Persecution complex.


You are taking all of the arguments way too personally. If you think that you are discussing “science” with people who hate you and are jealous of you, your head is so swelled up with pride that your vision is affected and you can’t see clearly what is actually happening.

If the best you can do is cower in the corner and say people hate you when they only disagree with you, you require more education and I promise that no one is jealous. (I also don’t mean book education. It is education in reality that is lacking)
Sorry to be the first person to ever tell you anything like this. The world is a tough place and anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t hate you.
If he wants to use the ole those of us with higher education can really see what genesis meant, that would be a fatal flaw, as the way he chose to describe Jesus being ignorant of what happened would show to us that he had a dim view on inspiration and on the Person and nature of Jesus
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I just glanced through the thread, and coincidentally I have been editing a file I wrote as a young man about the scientific accuracy of the Bible, especially in cosmology. For anyone who believes the Bible is inaccurate on cosmology, here you go. (Everyone else, just enjoy).
  • The earth is round (Is. 40:22, Ps. 103:12).
  • The number of stars is unknowable (Jer. 33:22, Gen. 22:-7).
  • Stars are each different (Ps. 117:4, 1 Cor. 15:41).
  • The nature of the center of the earth:no gravity (Rev. 9:1 and 2), great heat (Rev. 9:22, Matt. 13:42 and 50), No light (Matt. 22:13). Note: Hell may be in the center of the earth (Num. 16:31-33; Phil. 2:10).
  • Distances in space (Ps. 103:11, Is. 55:8-9, Job 22:12, Jer. 31:37).
  • No one has yet understood the “strong nuclear force”, which is the energy that holds together the atom. That is perhaps because Jesus Himself handles that (Col. 1:17, Heb. 13)!
  • The earth’s position in space is determined by gravity (Job 26:7, 38:6).
  • The First Law of Thermodynamics is that nothing is now being created (Gen. 2:2, Eccl. 1:9-10, 3:15) or destroyed (Neh. 8:6, Is. 40:26, Eccl. 3:14, James 1:17, 2 Peter 3:7, Heb. 1:3).
  • The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy probably did not exist in God’s original creation (Gen. 1:31). However, Adam’s sin brought a force of decay into the universe (Gen. 2:17, 3:17, Rom. 5:12, 8:20-22, Ps: 102:25-26, Is. 51:6, Heb. 12:26-28, 1 John 2:17, Matt. 24:35, 1 Peter 1:24-25). For example, it is not hard to imagine that the stars and galaxies were created as stationary bodies, but at the Fall they began to fly apart, so that they are presently moving away from each other in space. On that assumption, the farthest galaxies would be the most decayed, and the fastest moving, presently releasing great amounts of energy as they gradually move toward absolute entropy; in other words quasars. That is why God will perform a re-creation at the point when time ends and eternity begins (Is. 65:17, 66:22; 2 Peter 3:17, Rev. 21:1).
  • Heavenly bodies have orbits (Judges 5:20), and those orbits are precise (Jer. 31:35-36),
  • The rotation of the earth is seen by the observation of the differences in the constellations according to the seasons (Job 38:22).
  • The moon’s light is reflected (Job 27:5).
  • A star is composed of more than just one element (Job 25:5).
  • Stars emit energy (Job 38:7).
  • Could Ezekiel 31:7 be talking about neutron stars (or black holes)?
  • The blackness of outer space (Jude 13).
  • It is God who has made possible scientific systems of measurement (Rev. 21:17).
P. S. I have only scratched the surface here on how accurate the Bible is scientifically. I have not even mentioned the science of archaeology, which over and over has proven the Bible right.
 
Last edited:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For any of you who believe human evolution, the premise is irrefutable that there are "black boxes" in the human body. This is what Michael J. Behe has proven in his book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (2006).

What does Behe mean? A black box is a self-contained piece of technology that the originators do not want copied. For example, I have a friend who is a rocket engineer (designed the orbital maneuver engine of the space shuttle) whose job in Japan was to guard the black boxes of the US used in Japanese rockets.

Now, Behe points out that the human eye is a black box. In other words, you cannot take away a single element of the eye and have it work. There are 12 parts (VSP Vision Care | Vision Insurance), and all of them are essential. The eye will not work if any of them are missing. Ergo, the human eye was created, and it would be impossible for the eye to have evolved.

For anyone on this thread who believes in human evolution (theistic, or whatever), I challenge you to tell me how the eye evolved in a believable way. This is the Achilles heel of evolution. It cannot give the particulars of human evolution.
 
"Should" they? I don't think so for two reasons.

1.) Try as I might, I cannot (with any sense of intellectual honesty) believe that Genesis 1 uses the word "yom" in any way other than to say 6 24-hour days. If the writer of the first chapter of Genesis did not specify that those days were comprised of "evening and morning" than perhaps I could force myself to. I have not ever heard any believable explanation of what is meant by that if we are meant to help ourselves to any length of time we feel like to fit a pet theory. Put simply, I have no idea what is being said by "the evening and the morning" if yom can be taken to mean "some indeterminate period of time".

2.) The theory itself (at least any Darwinian model) is simply stupid. It fails on its face.

If I am meant to believe anything other than a YEC model of the Origins of the Earth, I need a better explanation than has ever been proffered thus far. Perhaps, we Young Earth Creationists are mistaken. But, I can't see giving up on it to favour a theory as obviously false as Darwinian evolution.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
"Should" they? I don't think so for two reasons.

1.) Try as I might, I cannot (with any sense of intellectual honesty) believe that Genesis uses the word "yom" in any way other than to say 6 24-hour days. If, the writer of the first chapter of Genesis did not specify that those days were comprised of "evening and morning" than perhaps I could force myself to. I have not ever heard any believable explanation of what is being said by that if we are meant to help ourselves to any length of time we feel like to fit a pet theory.
Well, I have heard that the reference to morning and evening means the beginning and ending respectively. Why anyone would think that you would describe something as happening starting with the end of it, its evening, and ending with the beginning of it, its morning, is illogical.
e.e. cummings did not introduce poor form into poetry until thousands of years after Genesis was written.
I fully agree with you, to say that these references to portions of the day are poetic is just fitting a pet theory.

2.) The theory itself (at least any Darwinian model) is simply stupid. It fails on its face.
That is because they begin with a conclusion and anything that is said is conformed to fit their views instead of form their views. Confirmation bias is the biggest flaw of modern “science.”

If I am meant to believe anything other than a YEC model of the Origins of the Earth, I need a better explanation than has ever been proffered thus far. Perhaps, we Young Earth Creationists are mistaken. But, I can't see giving up on it to favour a theory as obviously false as Darwinian evolution.
The idea that is proposed by theistic evolution is that God didn’t do what He said He did, He did it differently for reasons unknown.
The entire idea is debilitating to their own theory. They think that a god who writes fairy tales made the world, and can’t figure out why nobody is impressed by their god.

The closest explanation to the big bang that I can accept is that when God spoke, the disruption of space by the very Word of God caused what would be perceived as a very loud explosion to mankind. For that reason, it is good that God gently formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him after everything else was completed.

Equally ironic to me is that the big bang is still a theory. I have never heard of anyone saying anything about the theory of Genesis 1.
 

cjab

Member
....as obviously false as Darwinian evolution.
Animals are still evolving genetically. The evolution of some can be observed. Thus the "theory" of evolution gives way to the "facts" of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with any view of God or any view of the bible, as it is a scientific process that it is no purpose of the bible to refer to, any more than it is its function to explain any other scientific process. Does even one scientific process make it into the bible? I think not.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Animals are still evolving genetically. The evolution of some can be observed. Thus the "theory" of evolution gives way to the "facts" of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with any view of God or any view of the bible, as it is a scientific process that it is no purpose of the bible to refer to, any more than it is its function to explain any other scientific process. Does even one scientific process make it into the bible? I think not.
Can you tell me how the human eye evolved? See post #75 if this confuses you.

By the way, I just read the article you linked to, and it does not prove evolution. The guppy stayed a guppy, the Anole lizards stayed anole lizards, and so on. For evolution to be true, the change has to be into a new species. Change within a species is normal, and accepted by all creationist scientists, such as my NASA scientist friend Dr. K.

Edited in: that website you linked to was kind of a "bait and switch" thing! They advertised proof for evolution, but then gave you something else. I'm sure you'll be ready for that next time, right? ;) Oh, and by the way, the article is anonymous, as all the articles there are, so nobody can correct their error. I don't allow my students to quote from anonymous sources in their research papers because of that lack of accountability. And before you ask, my real name is John R. Himes, as I've said numerous times on the BB, so no, I'm never anonymous.
 
Last edited:

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
Animals are still evolving genetically. The evolution of some can be observed. Thus the "theory" of evolution gives way to the "facts" of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with any view of God or any view of the bible, as it is a scientific process that it is no purpose of the bible to refer to, any more than it is its function to explain any other scientific process. Does even one scientific process make it into the bible? I think not.
I’ve got a Norway spruce tree in my backyard. Six of them, but one in particular had a main root cut about 5 years ago when a new septic system was installed. It now produces three or four times more cones than any of the others. It is under stress because it is missing a main source of water. The branches have been consistently dying as the years go by and it seems like, so far, that it is more prolific. It has not become a different tree. It is under stress and God designed the world to take care of itself. It is a defense mechanism for the perpetuity of itself. It is actually an argument against evolution. As with the guppies, they don’t change, they resist change and attempt to make sure that they don’t become extinct. (Not that the trees are using their brains. I hope the conversation hasn’t evolved that much)
My children don’t look exactly like I do. Most people don’t look exactly like other people. This doesn’t mean that my children are not people, it just means that they have different characteristics. They are still people and are not evolving. Deer are incredibly similar to each other. Gorillas, tigers, lions, bears, bugs- they all change much less than people do generation to generation. Still, since Adam, we have all still been people. It is because God made the world to perpetuate itself, not to become something different.
Genesis 7:14
They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

The whole idea of people from certain places being evolved from something else or not fully evolved is a good example of how bad evolution is at explaining origins. All people can trace DNA back to mitochondrial Eve. It is not a new discovery and it shows how wrong the idea of evolution is in regard to mankind.
 
Top