Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?

[cjab]

No, given a timeframe of 500-1000 million years "anything" is not possible. If it cannot happen, it will not happen no matter how long you give the process. An impossibility is an impossibility regardless of how many times you attempt it. The importance of 500-1000 million years is the magic wand to make you extrapolate a process and imagine how it might have happened.
Much like the evolution of the eye, you have to imagine how it "might" occur.

The human race shouldn't expect to know about everything in the universe.

Just because we don't know how something happened, it doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Thus, I read that most deep-sea animals do not have color vision. They have a single, blue-sensitive, visual pigment because 1) as you go deeper through water in the ocean, all the colors disappear except for blue and 2) most bioluminescence is blue. Such is consistent with evolutionary transition of the eye. For you to stress that "evolution of the eye is impossible," simply because you can't personally apprehend how it might have happened, is not a good starting point.

Of course I hold that all evolution is ordained of God. So it's not as if I hold that randomness alone accounted for the eye. When I use the term "evolution", I refer only to the biological mechanics of what God ordained.

And, inasmuch as that is all we ever see, there is no justification for extrapolation beyond the reasonable limits of what can be observed. Beyond that, you are not in any realm of science and you simply have a post-modern creation myth.

I'd doubt your view of "what can be observed" is very comprehensive. Thus in different species of moles, we find that their eyes are in a much less advanced state of evolutionary development, genetically speaking - likely because their was no genetic impetus in that direction. There may even have been reverse evolution, (like with whales which migrated to the sea from land), in the sense that it could be conjectured that the only reason moles survive as a species is because they remain largely underground. Hence the reason for their poor eye sight, or in some cases, having no eye sight at all.

It proves only what creationists have accepted for ages and is observable. I know that chihuahuas and great danes are related. They began as dogs and they remain dogs. The differences are extreme (and somewhat superficial) but, there are limits.
There is no scientifically rigorous reason to imagine that they are related to the banana.
I do not then "expect" inter-species mutation. I "expect" intra-species mutations.
If I already assumed the Darwinian myth, then, given the magic wand of 1000 million years I might imagine it.

Evolution isn't a "myth," as its observable in modern species. What isn't observable is evolution occuring over millions of years, except by reference to the fossil record. And YEC doesn't have an answer to the fossil record, except by positing "God created fossils." I don't read it in the bible.

 

[Ben1445]

And YEC doesn't have an answer to the fossil record, except by positing "God created fossils." I don't read it in the bible.

You deny the Genesis flood?
You deny that Noah and the events surrounding his life were true?

2 Peter 3:5-7
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: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This explains fossils, if you will listen to it. If you want to deny it without consideration, you should not expect to ever hear an explanation from YEC because you shut your eyes and plug your ears when you know that they are giving you an explanation.

 

[Ben1445]

YEC is a cult, first because it is scientifically incomprehensible on any account, and secondly it invokes the bible as its authority.

You don’t know what a cult is. Look it up.

If you don’t believe that the Bible is God’s word given to men, how does God talk to you? Mystically? Audibly? Astrology?

Or if you do think it is God’s word, why would it not have authority?

Is God an all powerful being or just a crutch to hang your science on?
The way that you talk about God shows that you don’t believe in Him much. Your belief in Him is inconsistent with your belief in science and the two ideologies are scientifically irreconcilable.

 

[Reynolds]

As that seems to deny was a Creator, or at least that Mankind was a special creation in His own image?

IMO. If Gen 1 and 2 are allegorical then the entire Bible is allegorical and useless.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not here to debate the science of evolution, other than very generally. But consider this: the science of evolution and movement of the Earth's tectonic plates over millions of years makes more sense than the theology of God creating fossils of sea creatures on mountains, just to cater to YEC.

I don't mean to be offensive, but that is the most ridiculous view of creationism I've ever heard of. No one believes the idea that God created fossils on the mountains just for YEC. I read The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris 55 years ago for a geology class in college, and the flood fully explains that phenomenon (which actually is real). Seems like if you are going to oppose YEC, you ought to actually figure out what we believe.

With the eye, it seems to me that the mistake you are making is to posit "piecemeal evolution" as impossible. That line of attack is wrong, because no-one holds to it. Of course, the eye, as many other parts of the body, wouldn't have evolved piecemeal, but in a systematic way, where the eye system as a whole obtained ever greater degrees of sophistication.

That's a lame reply. I still doesn't explain how the eye "evolved." You seem to be saying, "Well it all evolved at the same time." What, from nothing to some kind of semi-eye that can't see and is therefore useless, then after a million years some sensitivity, again useless. Finally after 100 million years an actual eye? Really? That's all you have? I highly recommend you read the book yourself. I'd give some trenchant quotes from it, but I'm in a great German coffee shop with my sweet wife of 46 tears, and don't have the book.

Not every article on the WWW appears in a form that would be found in academic journals. It doesn't infer the article is untrue. If an article isn't true, it's up to you to adduce the evidence for its untruthfulness. I found nothing in it that makes me suspicious of its verity. Attacking its lack of academic credentials is underhand if the article wasn't intended as an academic publication, but only as a synopsis of other academic articles already published.

Again, my point is the anonymity. So someone can "correct" or "fix" someone else's article and lie or simply post in error, and there is very little accountability. I once read an article on a NT ms in Wikipedia and there were two different statements about the content of the ms. Again, I heard about a world class expert on a certain subject having his Wiki article "corrected" by an ignoramus.

If you have any professor friends, ask them if they allow Wikipedia, Gotquestions, or other such Internet sources as a source for a research paper. (Now we profs have to start dealing with AI in such papers.)

YEC is a cult, first because it is scientifically incomprehensible on any account, and secondly it invokes the bible as its authority. My reading of the bible doesn't make it any source of science. To read it so, is to misuse it. The bible makes it clear than many matters are for man to discover for himself. All misuse of the bible is impermissible. Misuse has been a constant source of religious persecution down the ages.

Being "scientifically incomprehensible" does not mean a cult. And what in the world is wrong with the Bible for authority for a Christian? Surely you believe the Bible, don't you? Did you happen to look at my previous post about science in the Bible?

I have met a cult member in Japan of the Aum terrorist cult. His beliefs were universes apart from any YEC advocate. Here is an authoritative definition of a cult: Definition of CULT. In Christianity, a cult has a charismatic, extremely controlling leader (who doesn't exist in YEC): Jim Jones, Asahara Shoko (AUM), Joseph Smith, etc.

I have already made my judgement concerning YEC. Seems we are going to be in eternal disagreement on it. Actually I have never considered it even worthy of debate. Radio carbon dating goes back 50,000 years, as does so much earth-science regress well before the era of Adam.

Yes, carbon dating, the proud hoax. I could link to many articles. Here's just one (with the author's name ). Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery

To say that the world was created in the same week that Adam was created isn't made out by any apostle of Christ, and so why elevate that theory to the status of an article of faith, as YEC do, even on this very board?

Yes, I'm very familiar with the teachings of the apostles and their followers. I've translated their books into Japanese, I've read the early church fathers, Eusebius, etc. Their concern was the Great Commission, and building the new church. There was no reason for them to discuss Adam and creation. That was nowhere in their purview. So your reference to them is a non sequitur.

 

[Craigbythesea]

First, the apostles acknowledge that Hebrew is authoritative over the LXX in respect of the OT. This is easily seen from Paul's quotation of Heb 2:4 in Rom 1:17, where he doesn't take the LXX literally (which adds a gloss to the Hebrew), but reverts back to the original Hebrew meaning.

This implies that we ought to discard the LXX as non-aithoritative, as far too late.

Most of the Christians in the first century could not read Hebrew. That is why the Tanakh was translated into Greek. Paul could read Hebrew but the majority of the time when he quoted from the Old Testament he quoted from the Septuagint. Other times he quoted from texts that we do not have. Furthermore, in Paul’s day, there was no standardized Hebrew text of the Hebrew Old Testament—and there were none for almost a millennium. Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the Masoretic text as a non-authoritative text and use instead the Septuagint not only for their Bible but also for their liturgies.

Reverting back to the Hebrew, the Hebrew word for firmament is רָקִיעַ which comes from the verb רָקַע which means to beat out, to stamp, to stretch.

Although used of beating out metal, the verb isn't restricted to metal, but can be used of anything beaten or stamped out. Thus Keil is right when he suggests there is no necessary implication of a solid structure in the Hebrew. The meaning is only what is beaten out, i.e. an expanse. The allegation is that the critical view is hopelessly conditioned by the secular ideas of the ancients, rather than being content with the simple unnuanced Hebrew concept of an "expanse". Again, I don't believe there is a case for imputing anything scientific into this word.

Let’s stick to the facts. This is what Keil actually wrote,

“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.“

And again, there are no poetical similes in Genesis 1-11. Moreover, Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that does not use similes or any other kind of Metaphors. Furthermore, Genesis 1-11 is written primarily in prose.

In contemporary Hebrew, the word רָקִיעַ expresses the concept of “the sky as observed from the earth, especially at night.” Therefore, it is not a “technical” word! Its meaning in the Old Testament is determined by the context—and for more than a century, scholars of ancient Hebrew and the other Semitic languages have overwhelmingly agreed that it expresses in Genesis 1:6-8 a solid structure in the form of a dome covering a flat earth. The only dissenters are those people who, for religious reasons, believe that that Genesis 1-11 is a literal accurate account of actual events—including the flood story in Genesis 6-8! Genesis 1-11 is a totally (including “the windows of the heavens”) literal account, but not an accurate account of actual events.

 

[Ben1445]

I'm in a great German coffee shop with my sweet wife of 46 tears,

Are these the tears you have caused her or she has caused you?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[cjab]

Most of the Christians in the first century could not read Hebrew. That is why the Tanakh was translated into Greek. Paul could read Hebrew but the majority of the time when he quoted from the Old Testament he quoted from the Septuagint. Other times he quoted from texts that we do not have. Furthermore, in Paul’s day, there was no standardized Hebrew text of the Hebrew Old Testament—and there were none for almost a millennium. Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the Masoretic text as a non-authoritative text and use instead the Septuagint not only for their Bible but also for their liturgies.

Let’s stick to the facts. This is what Keil actually wrote,

“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.“

And again, there are no poetical similes in Genesis 1-11. Moreover, Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that does not use similes or any other kind of Metaphors. Furthermore, Genesis 1-11 is written primarily in prose.

In contemporary Hebrew, the word רָקִיעַ expresses the concept of “the sky as observed from the earth, especially at night.” Therefore, it is not a “technical” word! Its meaning in the Old Testament is determined by the context—and for more than a century, scholars of ancient Hebrew and the other Semitic languages have overwhelmingly agreed that it expresses in Genesis 1:6-8 a solid structure in the form of a dome covering a flat earth. The only dissenters are those people who, for religious reasons, believe that that Genesis 1-11 is a literal accurate account of actual events—including the flood story in Genesis 6-8! Genesis 1-11 is a totally (including “the windows of the heavens”) literal account, but not an accurate account of actual events.

I agree there are no technical words here.

Keil says "According to optical appearance, it is described as a carpet spread out above the earth (Ps. civ. 2), a curtain (Isa. xl. 22), a transparent work of sapphire (Ex. xxiv. 10), or a molten looking-glass (Job xxxvii. 18) ; but there is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass, a σιδήρεον, or χάλκεον or πολύχαλκον, such as Greek poets describe."

This is the crux. We find nothing of Greek secular science in the bible, beyond the choice of words used by the LXX. As such, I believe the introduction of Greek secular science represents a gloss that we are at liberty to reject.

The only reference to a "vaulted dome" concept that I can find in the Hebrew scriptures appears in Amos 9:6, aguddah, but again, this is restricted to only a few translations. The inference of a "dome" is conjectured and imputed, rather than inherent to the meaning of אֲגֻדָּה which denotes cords, bands, thongs - something which binds someone or something together - here heaven and earth.

I appreciate that your position is "for more than a century, scholars of ancient Hebrew and the other Semitic languages have overwhelmingly agreed that it expresses in Genesis 1:6-8 a solid structure in the form of a dome covering a flat earth." But the point remains that what you are articulating is "secular science" rather than what merely appears to the human eye. "Biblical scholars" have always been inclined to error - modernist "critical schools" have produced numerous "scholars" who have wrongly imputed all kinds of things into the bible, but which are based in conjecture. Words are not always used literally: they can be figurative. Ancient vocabularies are limited. Poets were restricted in their choice of words. There are no grounds that I can see to stray beyond descriptions of the visible.

And you are overstating it if you ever say "all" biblical scholars.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I agree there are no technical words here.

Keil says "According to optical appearance, it is described as a carpet spread out above the earth (Ps. civ. 2), a curtain (Isa. xl. 22), a transparent work of sapphire (Ex. xxiv. 10), or a molten looking-glass (Job xxxvii. 18) ; but there is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass, a σιδήρεον, or χάλκεον or πολύχαλκον, such as Greek poets describe."

This is the crux. We find nothing of Greek secular science in the bible, beyond the choice of words used by the LXX. As such, I believe the introduction of Greek secular science represents a gloss that we are at liberty to reject.

The only reference to a "vaulted dome" concept that I can find in the Hebrew scriptures appears in Amos 9:6, aguddah, but again, this is restricted to only a few translations. The inference of a "dome" is conjectured and imputed, rather than inherent to the meaning of אֲגֻדָּה which denotes cords, bands, thongs - something which binds someone or something together - here heaven and earth.

I appreciate that your position is "for more than a century, scholars of ancient Hebrew and the other Semitic languages have overwhelmingly agreed that it expresses in Genesis 1:6-8 a solid structure in the form of a dome covering a flat earth." But the point remains that what you are articulating is "secular science" rather than what merely appears to the human eye. "Biblical scholars" have always been inclined to error - modernist "critical schools" have produced numerous "scholars" who have wrongly imputed all kinds of things into the bible, but which are based in conjecture. Words are not always used literally: they can be figurative. Ancient vocabularies are limited. Poets were restricted in their choice of words. There are no grounds that I can see to stray beyond descriptions of the visible.

And you are overstating it if you ever say "all" biblical scholars.

“Greek secular science?” All science is secular.

“This is the crux. We find nothing of Greek secular science in the bible, beyond the choice of words used by the LXX.” Which words are these?

“But the point remains that what you are articulating is "secular science" rather than what merely appears to the human eye.” What I am saying is how Genesis 1:7-8 has been translated by both ancient and modern scholars based upon linguistic data rather than religious dogma and presuppositions.

Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the fact that the word “expanse” came into the English language in the early 1600’s as a synonym for the English word “firmament” and that it never expresses the concept of the earth’s atmosphere?

Genesis 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NASB, 1995)

 

[cjab]

I don't mean to be offensive, but that is the most ridiculous view of creationism I've ever heard of. No one believes the idea that God created fossils on the mountains just for YEC. I read The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris 55 years ago for a geology class in college, and the flood fully explains that phenomenon (which actually is real). Seems like if you are going to oppose YEC, you ought to actually figure out what we believe.

Whatever - there are no authorities in YEC science & theology: everything is scientifically or theologically falsified from a flood covering the entire surface of the physical earth, to ALL fossils being created after the flood. The idea of Adam's sons and daughters intermarrying after the fall is a non-starter: Abraham's knew God prohibited incest amongst siblings of the same mother, so this must have been part of the marriage law from year zero. Adam and Eve must be construed from a spiritual POV, where "living" and "breath of life" etc infer spiritual life (not only biological life).

I read it that the Adamites were blessed by God with almost deific powers over the entire natural world, including other homosapiens, due to their ongoing relationship with God, which be no means ended with the fall, as the Cain and Abel story relates. Hence also the growth of polytheism after the fall, deriving from ancestor worship of the Adamites, many of which fell into sin: hence the flood was sent to destroy the Adamites especially, excepting Noah, who was clearly a ruler of some kind as he couldn't have built the ark by himself.

The bible infers the flood didn't cover the entire physical world - only the geographically limited Adamic realm which is the geographic context to Genesis until Noah, when the rest of the globe becomes included in the geographic referent. Also, the bible refers to the Nephilim as in existence, both before and after the flood. Only when you perceive the bible as principally concerning the people of God, who are the "living," as set against their enemies, who are cursed, will the demon of pseudo-science be conquered. The message that the bible offers is that if you are willing to be deceived by false prophets, you will be deceived by them, whoever you are and whatever you profess to believe.

That's a lame reply. I still doesn't explain how the eye "evolved." You seem to be saying, "Well it all evolved at the same time." What, from nothing to some kind of semi-eye that can't see and is therefore useless, then after a million years some sensitivity, again useless. Finally after 100 million years an actual eye? Really? That's all you have? I highly recommend you read the book yourself. I'd give some trenchant quotes from it, but I'm in a great German coffee shop with my sweet wife of 46 tears, and don't have the book.

I'm not going to debate science with you, as it is incredibly varied, and complicated, and perhaps far more advanced than even you imagine. I have only limited time on earth. Re the bible, which is my main interest: I see an issue in your inability to grasp what its primary message is, which is spiritual, not scientific. It should never be read as either "science" or a pretension to being an authority on scientific theories, even if it does implicitly reject the perverse. I judge that neither biological evolution, nor Old Earth, are inherently perverse.

Again, my point is the anonymity. So someone can "correct" or "fix" someone else's article and lie or simply post in error, and there is very little accountability. I once read an article on a NT ms in Wikipedia and there were two different statements about the content of the ms. Again, I heard about a world class expert on a certain subject having his Wiki article "corrected" by an ignoramus.

I agree anonymity is always a danger: on the WWW, especially. That's why the WWW should only be seen as giving pointers into the world of peer-reviewed academic publications. This denotes a systemic failure of AI, which does not give its sources.

If you have any professor friends, ask them if they allow Wikipedia, Gotquestions, or other such Internet sources as a source for a research paper. (Now e profs have to start dealing with AI in such papers.)

I take your point, and likewise to AI, Gotquestions is only sometimes satisfactory but many times terrible. Wikipedia is better than either in this respect, because contrary to AI & Gotquestions, it is required to give sources. Where no sources are given, issues always arise.

Being "scientifically incomprehensible" does not mean a cult. And what in the world is wrong with the Bible for authority for a Christian? Surely you believe the Bible, don't you? Did you happen to look at my previous post about science in the Bible?

But I have suggested that the bible is not a scientific text book. What is wrong is when the bible is used in a carnal and idolatrous sense, rather than its intended spiritual sense. To use the bible as the authenticator and / or justifier of YEC is what is wrong. Take the bible out of the YEC equation, and then ask: does YEC have any chance of standing up to modern secular science? I don't believe so. YEC exists solely to justify the bible as a scientfic authority, but there is no authority in the bible which avers it to be a source of secular science.

And we shouldn't confuse science with history. As a source of history, we are justified in treating the bible as reliable - and yet not as a secular historian would write history. When it says Adam was the first man, we can't interpret this biologically as the first "homosapiens," because "homosapiens" isn't the bible's perspective of what a man is, which is rather that of one with the spiritual and intellectual capacity to know God: i.e. one with an advanced moral intuition capable of recognizing God-given law, and so able to maintain what we would classify as civilization.

Many of the names of places and peoples, especially in Genesis, are not per the original ancient (i.e. sumerian/akkadian/eqyptian/amorite) names. And so it appears mysterious. And yet the unravelling of the secular history of the bible continues piecemeal, and seems to confirm its accuracy to a large extent. YEC has jumped the gun, in presuming on both an erroneous interpretation of the bible, and on an erroneous science. It is not the only mistake. Many mistakes have been made along the way, e.g. with respect to the eqyptian correlation, which errors have tended to impute the bible text with falsity; e.g. with the Hebrews as never having come out of Eqypt and as always existing in Canaan. But this error was concomitant with attributing a far too late date for the Exodus. Such errors, many of which are maintained by academics, are gradually being corrected as our understanding of both the bible and secular egyptian history improves.

 

[cjab]

...........continued

I have met a cult member in Japan of the Aum terrorist cult. His beliefs were universes apart from any YEC advocate. Here is an authoritative definition of a cult: Definition of CULT. In Christianity, a cult has a charismatic, extremely controlling leader (who doesn't exist in YEC): Jim Jones, Asahara Shoko (AUM), Joseph Smith, etc.

Almost the first thing that was said to me in this sub-forum was that I didn't know God and there was something wrong with my beliefs. This from a YEC'er. This is what I mean by YEC as a cult: a pseudo-religious authority that arrogates to itself a right (implied or express) to pronounce judgement on others' beliefs on the basis of what they credit Genesis as saying. Who gave YEC authority to usurp the judgement of God? Who gave anyone a license to dictate to others that Genesis 1-3 be understood from a secular scientific POV?

Yes, carbon dating, the proud hoax. I could link to many articles. Here's just one (with the author's name ). Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery

Correcting flaws in carbon dating, which I myself am very willing to accept exist, doesn't mean that it's a "hoax". The article itself clearly doesn't treat the science as a hoax, any more than Newtonian mechanics becomes a "hoax" just because Relativity stipulates that Newtonian mechanics becomes approximate and eventually untrue at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the teachings of the apostles and their followers. I've translated their books into Japanese, I've read the early church fathers, Eusebius, etc. Their concern was the Great Commission, and building the new church. There was no reason for them to discuss Adam and creation. That was nowhere in their purview. So your reference to them is a non sequitur.

I don't agree. Paul refers to Adam as the first man, and his theology is seen as based on this premise. This is a permissible usage of Genesis - the understanding of Genesis as it is supposed to be understood, in a spiritual light. What Paul clearly desists from doing is deriving carnal premises from Genesis, i.e. on matters on which it is silent. That is the YEC error. For instance, Genesis never says that a "day of creation" is 24 hours. That is not anything an apostle would have permitted as dogma, an article of faith, and neither should any Christian today.

 

[Jerome]

Genesis never says that a "day of creation" is 24 hours. That is not anything an apostle would have permitted as dogma, an article of faith, and neither should any Christian today.

Dr. Mark Dever:

"Many people have wondered if these days are the kind of 24-hour days that we know now."

"The fact that the word for day is used to refer to things other than 24-hour days....If you look in chapter 2, verse 4 [ESV "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."]...'In the day'...that makes the point that the very same word is used, in that case, to refer to six days, the six days that just happened."

"In the first three days, there's no sun and moon yet, so why would we assume that they would be the kind of 24-hour solar days that we know?"

"All of this suggests to me an indeterminate period of time may have been intended".

capitolhillbaptist.org/sermon/the-beginning

 

[Ben1445]

Whatever - there are no authorities in YEC science & theology: everything is scientifically or theologically falsified from a flood covering the entire surface of the physical earth, to ALL fossils being created after the flood.

If God is not an authority, and since you reject the authority of any scientist who is YEC, you will never find an authority in YEC. You have already determined that a YEC is not an authority. You have no idea what the qualifications are for any of the scientists employed by Answers in Genesis or any other YEC person. Your appeal to experts is not even based on knowing who are experts and who are not.

The idea of Adam's sons and daughters intermarrying after the fall is a non-starter:

And your first people that both happened to crawl out of the mud at the same time married who?
The idea that God planned mankind by bestiality really is a non-starter.

Abraham's knew God prohibited incest amongst siblings of the same mother, so this must have been part of the marriage law from year zero.

Chapter and verse please?

Adam and Eve must be construed from a spiritual POV, where "living" and "breath of life" etc infer spiritual life (not only biological life).

Since you are not an authority on the subject, I will accept the testimony of the God who was.

I read it

(Not in the Bible! Whatever you read this in certainly is the work of men.)

that the Adamites were blessed by God with almost deific powers over the entire natural world, including other homosapiens, due to their ongoing relationship with God, which be no means ended with the fall, as the Cain and Abel story relates. Hence also the growth of polytheism after the fall, deriving from ancestor worship of the Adamites, many of which fell into sin: hence the flood was sent to destroy the Adamites especially, excepting Noah, who was clearly a ruler of some kind as he couldn't have built the ark by himself.

No wonder you don’t believe the Bible. You actually prefer fairy tales. May I suggest the Brothers Grimm?

The bible infers the flood didn't cover the entire physical world - only the geographically limited Adamic realm which is the geographic context to Genesis until Noah, when the rest of the globe becomes included in the geographic referent.

Genesis 7
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.


Under the whole heaven is not all the earth? What portion of the earth was in space before the flood?
You talk about what the Bible implies but the the things you infer are not close to what the Bible states.

Also, the bible refers to the Nephilim as in existence, both before and after the flood. Only when you perceive the bible as principally concerning the people of God, who are the "living," as set against their enemies, who are cursed, will the demon of pseudo-science be conquered. The message that the bible offers is that if you are willing to be deceived by false prophets, you will be deceived by them, whoever you are and whatever you profess to believe.

Spoken by the mouth that says that when God said it in Genesis, it isn’t what He meant.

I'm not going to debate science with you, as it is incredibly varied,

Science is observable, testable, and repeatable. Your evolution is none of these. It is not science. It is an anti-God belief system.

and complicated,

And still we teach it to children. It can’t be too complicated to discuss (unless you are referring to your evolution religion, that might be complicated)

and perhaps far more advanced than even you imagine.

Science makes advances. What science can discover will not change. Things are constant and operate by laws. That is science. When scientists took the turn into evolution, they left scientific activity and began trying to prove a conclusion instead of draw a conclusion.

I have only limited time on earth. Re the bible, which is my main interest: I see an issue in your inability to grasp what its primary message is, which is spiritual, not scientific. It should never be read as either "science" or a pretension to being an authority on scientific theories, even if it does implicitly reject the perverse. I judge that neither biological evolution, nor Old Earth, are inherently perverse.

How can God teach spiritual wisdom and lie about how He created the world?

I agree anonymity is always a danger: on the WWW, especially. That's why the WWW should only be seen as giving pointers into the world of peer-reviewed academic publications. This denotes a systemic failure of AI, which does not give its sources.


I take your point, and likewise to AI, Gotquestions is only sometimes satisfactory but many times terrible. Wikipedia is better than either in this respect, because contrary to AI & Gotquestions, it is required to give sources. Where no sources are given, issues always arise.


But I have suggested that the bible is not a scientific text book. What is wrong is when the bible is used in a carnal and idolatrous sense, rather than its intended spiritual sense.

You prefer the idolatry of evolution?

To use the bible as the authenticator and / or justifier of YEC is what is wrong. Take the bible out of the YEC equation, and then ask: does YEC have any chance of standing up to modern secular science? I don't believe so. YEC exists solely to justify the bible as a scientfic authority, but there is no authority in the bible which avers it to be a source of secular science.

Since God is the author of the Bible, and God, by His own admission, made everything, He is an authority. God made science. God understands science better than you or anyone who you consider to be an authority.

And we shouldn't confuse science with history. As a source of history, we are justified in treating the bible as reliable - and yet not as a secular historian would write history. When it says Adam was the first man, we can't interpret this biologically as the first "homosapiens," because "homosapiens" isn't the bible's perspective of what a man is, which is rather that of one with the spiritual and intellectual capacity to know God: i.e. one with an advanced moral intuition capable of recognizing God-given law, and so able to maintain what we would classify as civilization.

You haven’t come up with all of this on your own have you? You must have found invisible golden tablets, right??

Many of the names of places and peoples, especially in Genesis, are not per the original ancient (i.e. sumerian/akkadian/eqyptian/amorite) names. And so it appears mysterious. And yet the unravelling of the secular history of the bible continues piecemeal, and seems to confirm its accuracy to a large extent. YEC has jumped the gun, in presuming on both an erroneous interpretation of the bible, and on an erroneous science. It is not the only mistake. Many mistakes have been made along the way, e.g. with respect to the eqyptian correlation, which errors have tended to impute the bible text with falsity; e.g. with the Hebrews as never having come out of Eqypt and as always existing in Canaan. But this error was concomitant with attributing a far too late date for the Exodus. Such errors, many of which are maintained by academics, are gradually being corrected as our understanding of both the bible and secular egyptian history improves.

When it has completely improved, you will also believe the Bible.

 

[Ben1445]

Almost the first thing that was said to me in this sub-forum was that I didn't know God and there was something wrong with my beliefs. This from a YEC'er. This is what I mean by YEC as a cult: a pseudo-religious authority that arrogates to itself a right (implied or express) to pronounce judgement on others' beliefs on the basis of what they credit Genesis as saying. Who gave YEC authority to usurp the judgement of God? Who gave anyone a license to dictate to others that Genesis 1-3 be understood from a secular scientific POV?

Who gave you authority to usurp the words of God and insert evolution where no possibility of connection is made in the Bible.
You yourself have a pseudo religious belief that thinks it knows better than what God says. You are upset with YEC for exactly what you are.
What it all boils down to is that you don’t believe God has any place in your physical, scientific life.
You are wrong about that. God is God all seven, 24 hour days of the week and not just the few hours of “just me God and the fish” religion that people think they are giving up.

 

[Ben1445]

Dr. Mark Dever:

"Many people have wondered if these days are the kind of 24-hour days that we know now."

"The fact that the word for day is used to refer to things other than 24-hour days....If you look in chapter 2, verse 4 [ESV "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."]...'In the day'...that makes the point that the very same word is used, in that case, to refer to six days, the six days that just happened."

"In the first three days, there's no sun and moon yet, so why would we assume that they would be the kind of 24-hour solar days that we know?"

"All of this suggests to me an indeterminate period of time may have been intended".

capitolhillbaptist.org/sermon/the-beginning

why would we assume that they would be the kind of 24-hour solar days that we know?"

Because the days were made for us. Why would I begin to assume that God changed the definitions in the middle of the week instead of creating a reference to explain what He has already established.