Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Gup20 · Aug 17, 2004

The showing is in the universe, that is manifestedly billions of years old. The showing is in the history of life, that is manifestedly of common descent.
Click to expand...

Which is more trustworthy - the Creator or the creation? Who's word do you trust as infallible - the Creator, or the creation?

God says in His Word it did not happen over millions of years, but mere days. Even if the evidence in nature had been gathered in a non-biased or reliable manner (mind you evolutionary evidence has not), anything that disagrees with God Himself is wrong. It is the same mistake Eve made when God told her not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowlege of good and evil, but the natural evidence, conbined with the lie of Satan convinced her otherwise.

These things being true, as per the overwhelming evidence
Click to expand...

This evidence is tainted, however. It was collected with intentional disregard to the God's word or any possibility of supernatural influence. There was an a priori committment to a wholistically natural process that overshadowed all interpretations of the physical evidence. Any interpretation that upheld that naturalistic committment, not matter how improbable, was accepted over and above any evidence that could lead to the Bible being right... or there being any supernatural influences in our history.

For example, the probability of one single cell forming and reproducing on it's own is FAR beyond the mathematical and chemical limit of possible. The probability for complex structures such as the human eye are FAR FAR beyond the realm of mathematical possibility. Yet the naturalistic process was accepted regardless of the impossibility because it was wholistically naturalistic - not because it was the most reliable or likely theory.

It is your choice to cling to the interpretation that keeps science out of the picture,quote]

No so. I cling to what scripture says is true, and what real science (unhindered by an a priori committment to a wholisticly natural history) has to say.

but science is, after all, merely the accumulation of objective knowledge, as foretold in scripture itself.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately evolution is not an example of 'objective knowledge'. It is an accumulation of humanism, certainly, but in no wise an accumulation of 'knowledge'.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

It is adherance to scripture that promotes knowledge and wisdom. Evolution and humanism are the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

BobRyan · Aug 17, 2004

Originally posted by Gup20:
My favorite line:

You see... even the very idea of Salvation is founded and born out of Genesis. To dismiss Genesis as a non-literal account is to dismiss the same nature of Grace and thereby salvation.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point.

The Gospel writers themnselve "Appeal to the DETAILS" of the Gen 1-3 "Account" NOT just "the vague notion that if you go back to the big bang then God got every thing started".

But as our evolutionist friends here have already admitted - GOD REALLY DID tell a Creationist story - (but of course they claim HE HAD to do that since God's people in Bible times were just not up to the task like the wonderful evolutionist Atheists of our day).

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Aug 17, 2004

Gup 20 said --
Unfortunately evolution is not an example of 'objective knowledge'. It is an accumulation of humanism, certainly, but in no wise an accumulation of 'knowledge'.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

It is adherance to scripture that promotes knowledge and wisdom. Evolution and humanism are the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

Hmm - they are "antiknowledge" in fact.

Objectivity and critical thinking don't seem to be welcome among some evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

Paul of Eugene · Aug 19, 2004

For those interested in evidence instead of rhetoric, here's a compilation of evidence in favor of evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Gup20 · Aug 19, 2004

For those interested in the evidence (instead of the humanistic/atheisitc rhetoric on Talk Origins), here is a compillation of evidence proving beyond any shadow of doubt that the earth is young, and that biblical (literal) creation happened:

www.biblegateway.com

Gup20 · Aug 19, 2004

This is a very good article on AiG about the literalness of Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp

I will paste it here, but it is much easier to read on the AiG site (all the HTML formatting is intact):

Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:

Poetry—as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason why the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.

Parables—as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable and about which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.

Prophecy—as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).

Letters—as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.

Biography—as in the gospels.

Autobiography/testimony—as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1–19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1–21; 26:1–22).

Authentic historical facts—as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.

Thus the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content. Who then was the author of Genesis, and what intention is revealed by his style and the content of what he wrote?

The author
The Lord Jesus Himself and the gospel writers said that the Law was given by Moses (Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; John 1:17), and the uniform tradition of the Jewish scribes and early Christian fathers, and the conclusion of conservative scholars to the present day, is that Genesis was written by Moses. This does not preclude the possibility that Moses had access to patriarchal records, preserved by being written on clay tablets and handed down from father to son via the line of Adam–Seth–Noah–Shem–Abraham–Isaac–Jacob, etc., as there are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are the generations [Hebrew: toledoth = ‘origins’ or by extension ‘record of the origins’] of … .’1 As these statements all come after the events they describe, and the events recorded in each division all took place before rather than after the death of the individuals so named, they may very well be subscripts or closing signatures, i.e. colophons, rather than superscripts or headings. If this is so, the most likely explanation of them is that Adam, Noah, Shem, and the others each wrote down an account of the events which occurred in his lifetime, and Moses, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected and compiled these, along with his own comments, into the book we now know as Genesis2 (see also Did Moses really write Genesis?).

Chapters 12–50 of Genesis were very clearly written as authentic history, as they describe the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons who were the ancestral heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jewish people, from earliest biblical times to the present day, have always regarded this portion of Genesis as the true record of their nation’s history.

So what about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which are our main concern, as these are the ones that have incurred the most criticism from modern scholars, scientists, and sceptics?

Genesis 1–11
Are any of these chapters poetry?
To answer this question we need to examine in a little more depth just what is involved in the parallelism of ideas that constitutes Hebrew poetry.

Let us consider Psalm 1:1, which reads as follows: ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.’ Here we see triple parallelism in the nouns and verbs used (reading downwards in the following scheme):

walketh counsel ungodly
standeth way sinners
sitteth seat scornful

As well as this overt parallelism, there is also a covert or subtle progression of meaning. In the first column, ‘walketh’ suggests short-term acquaintance, ‘standeth’ implies readiness to discuss, and ‘sitteth’ speaks of long-term involvement. In the second column, ‘counsel’ betokens general advice, ‘way’ indicates a chosen course of action, and ‘seat’ signifies a set condition of mind. In the third column, ‘ungodly’ describes the negatively wicked, ‘sinner’ characterizes the positively wicked, and ‘scornful’ portrays the contemptuously wicked.

Other types of Hebrew poetry include contrastive parallelism, as in Proverbs 27:6, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful’, and completive parallelism, as in Psalm 46:1, ‘God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of need.’3.

And so we return to our question. Are any of the first 11 chapters of Genesis poetry?

Answer: No, because these chapters do not contain information or invocation in any of the forms of Hebrew poetry, in either overt or covert form, and because Hebrew scholars of substance are agreed that this is so (see below).

Note: There certainly is repetition in Genesis chapter 1, e.g. ‘And God said …’ occurs 10 times; ‘and God saw that it was good/very good’ seven times; ‘after his/their kind’ 10 times; ‘And the evening and the morning were the … day’ six times. However, these repetitions have none of the poetic forms discussed above; rather they are statements of fact and thus a record of what happened, and possibly for emphasis—to indicate the importance of the words repeated.

Are any of these chapters parables?
No, because when Jesus told a parable He either said it was a parable, or He introduced it with a simile, so making it plain to the hearers that it was a parable, as on the many occasions when He said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like … .’ No such claim is made or style used by the author of Genesis 1–11.

Are any of these chapters prophecy?
Not in their full context, although two promises of God are prophetic in the sense that their fulfilment would be seen in the future. One of these is Genesis 3:15, which was the pronouncement by God to the serpent (Satan) in metaphorical form: ‘And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.’ (NASB). Many have interpreted the ‘seed’ in this verse as the Messiah, including most evangelicals and even the Jewish Targums4 hence the Talmudic expression ‘heels of the Messiah’5. The Messiah would suffer wounds to His feet (on the Cross), but would completely destroy Satan’s power. This verse also hints at the virginal conception, as the Messiah is called the seed of the woman, contrary to the normal biblical practice of naming the father rather than the mother of a child (cf. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, 1 Chronicles chapters 1–9, Matthew chapter 1, Luke 3:23–38).

The other is Genesis 8:21–22 and 9:11–17,

‘And the LORD said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake … and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.’

Are any of these chapters letters, biography, or autobiography/personal testimony?
This is where we need to consider some of the subscripts mentioned above.

If Adam knew the events of Creation Days 1–6, they must have been revealed to him by God, as Adam was not made until Day 6, and so he could have known them only if God had told him. This view is reinforced by the words, ‘These are the generations of [NIV: ‘This is the account of’] the heavens and of the earth when they were created …’ in Genesis 2:4a. The details of Day 7, the rest day, are included before this in Genesis 2:2–3, thereby completing (as we might expect) the record of a full seven-day week, before this subscript or closing signature appears.

Then follow the events of Genesis 2:4b–5:1a. This section tells us about Adam, his wife Eve, and their sons, and reads very much like a personal account of what Adam knew, saw, and experienced concerning the Garden of Eden, and the creation of Eve (chapter 2), their rebellion against God (chapter 3), and the deeds of their descendants (chapter 4 to 5:1), albeit written in the third person6. This section ends with the words, ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam.’

Is it feasible that Adam could have written Genesis 1:1–2:4a as the result of his pre-Fall conversation with God, and Genesis 2:4b–5:1 as the record of his own experiences? There is no problem concerning his ability to have done so. Adam was created a mature man, endowed with all the DNA, knowledge and skill he needed to perform all the tasks assigned him by God. No cave-man he! Adam knew enough horticulture ‘to dress and to keep’ the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15), and ample intelligence to recognize and name the distinct kinds of animals (Genesis 2:19). He (and Eve) could converse with God without ever having learned an alphabet, and there is no reason to suppose that he was not fully skilled in writing also7.

Supposed contradictions
What about the supposed contradictions between the order of events in Genesis chapter 2 and the order given in chapter 1?

There are none! See also Genesis contradictions?

If, with the NIV, we read ‘Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east …’ (Genesis 2:8) and, ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’ (Genesis 2:19 with emphasis added), it is clearly seen that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam. When Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20), they obviously were already in existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20–25. Dr Henry Morris comments:

‘It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20—probably the domesticated animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of the earth mentioned in Genesis 1:24, which presumably were those wild animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated fields.’8.

Concerning the names of geographical sites, we have no idea what the configuration of the land or the rivers was before the Flood, because the pre-Flood world was completely destroyed. The land areas and rivers named before the Flood do not correspond to similarly named features after the Flood.

The purpose of Genesis 2:18–25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was ‘a living soul’ whom God had created ‘in His own image’ (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Himself. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution.

There is therefore enough evidence for us to conclude that Adam most probably was the author of Genesis 2:4b–5:1, and that this is his record of his own experiences with respect to events in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Eve, the Fall, and in the lives of Cain, Abel, and Seth.

The next section is from 5:1b to 6:9a, and deals with the line from Adam to Noah, ending with, ‘These are the generations [or origins] of Noah.’

The next section is from 6:9b to 10:1a, and deals mainly with the Ark and the Flood, ending with, ‘Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.’ The wording of this subscript suggests that this portion was written by one of Noah’s sons, probably Shem, as Moses was descended from Shem. These chapters read very much like an eye-witness account because of the intimacy of detail which they contain. Consider Genesis 8:6–12 and note how this contains that ring of authenticity which is characteristic of an eye-witness account. It may even have been Shem’s diary!

Genesis 8:6–12:

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more. (KJV).

Such meticulous details are the stuff of authentic eye-witness testimony. They have the ring of truth.

There is thus a substantial body of evidence that these portions of Genesis delineated by subscripts were written by the persons named therein, for the purpose of making and passing on a permanent record.

So then, were these first 11 chapters written as a record of authentic historical facts?

Answer: Yes, for several reasons.
Internal evidence of the book of Genesis
1. There is the internal evidence of the book of Genesis itself. As already mentioned, chapters 12–50 have always been regarded by the Jewish people as being the record of their own true history, and the style of writing contained in chapters 1–11 is not strikingly different from that in chapters 12–50.

2. Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’9.

3. One of the main themes of Genesis is the Sovereignty of God. This is seen in God’s actions in respect of four outstanding events in Genesis 1–11 (Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Babel dispersion), and His relationship to four outstanding people in Genesis 12–50 (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). There is thus a unifying theme to the whole of the book of Genesis, which falls to the ground if any part is mythical and not true history; on the other hand, each portion reinforces the historical authenticity of the other.10

Evidence from the rest of the Bible
4. The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1–11 are referred to as real—historical, not mythical—people in the rest of the Bible, often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.

5. The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:2–9), and by referring to Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His teaching about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27).

6. Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning. The theme of the Bible is Redemption, and may be outlined thus:

i. God’s redeeming purpose is revealed in Genesis 1–11,
ii. God’s redeeming purpose progresses from Genesis 12 to Jude 25, and
iii. God’s redeeming purpose is consummated in Revelation 1–22.

But why does mankind need to be redeemed? What is it that he needs to be redeemed from? The answer is given in Genesis 1–11, namely, from the ruin brought about by sin. Unless we know that the entrance of sin to the human race was a true historical fact, God’s purpose in providing a substitutionary atonement is a mystery. Conversely, the historical truth of Genesis 1–11 shows that all mankind has come under the righteous anger of God and needs salvation from the penalty, power, and presence of sin.

7. Unless the events of the first chapters of Genesis are true history, the Apostle Paul’s explanation of the gospel in Romans chapter 5 and of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 has no meaning. Paul writes: ‘For as by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous’ (Romans 5:19). And, ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive … And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit’ (1 Corinthians 15:21–22; 45). The historical truth of the record concerning the first Adam is a guarantee that what God says in His Word about the last Adam [Jesus] is also true. Likewise, the historical, literal truth of the record concerning Jesus is a guarantee that what God says about the first Adam is also historically and literally true.

Conclusion
We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Gup20 · Aug 19, 2004

Let me ask a quick question - is MAN the greatest and most advanced of ANY and ALL of creation? Is there any thing in the world more 'Evolved' than Man?

I would imagine the answer is yes - man is the highest order of creature/being in creation.

So then, if we are the highest and best in creation, and we make mistakes and get things wrong (aka - we are fallible), what makes us think that we can look to the rest of creation - things that are far less than us - as more infallible than we - or as less infallible than the Word of God in scripture?

Mercury · Aug 19, 2004

Regarding the AiG article, I encourage everyone who read it to also read footnote 9 at the bottom. It subtilely reveals the difference between what the person actually believes (that the consensus is that Genesis does not support concordist views) and what they've twisted his words to imply (that all professors of Hebrew or Old Testament think Genesis 1-11 is literal history). In this case, apparently the difference was so blatant that they felt the need to explain it. Kudos to them for at least doing that.

Originally posted by Gup20:
Let me ask a quick question - is MAN the greatest and most advanced of ANY and ALL of creation? Is there any thing in the world more 'Evolved' than Man?
Click to expand...

No, there is no physical life in the world more evolved than man. There is also no currently living organism in the world that is less evolved than man. Evolution is about all life sharing a common ancestor in the distant past, so we are all the same distance away from that ancestor. In the same way, a grandson that is a spitting image of his grandfather is just as closely related to him as a granddaughter who has no discernable physical likeness to him. Similarly, all modern dogs are the same distance away from wolves, even though the physical differences and the amount of changes in DNA may be more severe in certain breeds.

I would imagine the answer is yes - man is the highest order of creature/being in creation.
Click to expand...

In that regard, I somewhat agree with you, but not for the reason you gave. Aside from the angels, humans are the highest creatures because we share the image of God. That's not evolutionary theory, that's Scripture. Evolution doesn't make claims about "more evolved" or "less evolved" in the sense of better or worse. Instead, it talks about earlier and later life forms, and simple and complex life forms. Evolution can't say whether bacteria are better than humans -- in some regards, bacteria are much more successful. The value judgments on these creatures need to come from a source outside of evolution, just as value judgments on things like nuclear weapons come from outside of physics, and value judgments on cloning come from outside of biology.

So then, if we are the highest and best in creation, and we make mistakes and get things wrong (aka - we are fallible), what makes us think that we can look to the rest of creation - things that are far less than us - as more infallible than we - or as less infallible than the Word of God in scripture?
Click to expand...

Sin is present in humanity in a way that it is not present in the rest of creation. As Romans 5:12 says (speaking of humans), "death came to all men, because all sinned." Animals don't sin. Plants don't sin. Rocks don't sin. Stars don't sin. All of creation is bound and groaning due to human sinfulness, but this has not caused creation to become a false witness. Scripture itself declares that creation testifies of its Creator (Psalm 19:1-4a, Romans 1:18-20). As such, it is not possible to dismiss the witness of creation without also dismissing the witness of Scripture.

[ August 19, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

Mercury · Aug 19, 2004

Originally posted by Mercury:
Similarly, all modern dogs are the same distance away from wolves, even though the physical differences and the amount of changes in DNA may be more severe in certain breeds.
Click to expand...

I think this sentence of mine may have been incorrect. From what I've read since, it is not settled whether wolves were domesticated more than once, so it is possible that not all dog breeds are the same evolutionary distance away from modern wolves.

Interesting that there's "missing links" even in the micro-evolutionary steps that most young-earth creationists accept.

BobRyan · Aug 20, 2004

Mercury -

The evolutionists here have ALREADY ADMITTED that Gen 1-2:3 IS God NOT telling the "stories" of evolutionism AND IS God telling the Creation account - creationism NOT evolutionism!

(Of course the evolutionists CLAIM that God came up with some reason for "lying" about His role and action in a literal 7 day creation WEEK - because the people of Bible times were so stupid as compared to the glorious atheist evolutionists of our day).

In any case ONCE you go down THAT road - you can't back up with "HOW dare you read Genesis 1-2:3 and find creationism!!".

(Why are the obvious points so hard for evolutionists??)

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Aug 20, 2004

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Gup20, you're making the common mistake "non-literal means untrue".
Click to expand...

Again - the "obvious response" is due here.

#1. Evolutionists NEVER say "AND by evolutionism I MEAN that IN SIX DAYS God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and rested the 7th day".

Evolutionists NEVER say "And evening and morning where the 4th day - WHEN God MADE TWO great lights in the sky".

Evolutionists NEVER say "AND God said LET THERE BE... AND GOD CREATED.. and so EVENING and MORNING were the 5th day".

So "the idea" that these are "other ways to say the TRUTH of evolutionism" fails at the start.

#2. Evolutionists here ALREADY admit that the CREATION account is the OTHER story God told INSTEAD of the truth because the people of Bible times WERE NOT up to the standards of modern atheist evolutionists. This means that it is "not accident" that evolutionists DO NOT use the "details" God gives in HIS account as "THEIR way of teaching evolutionism".

So "yes" evolutionists teach that the details God gave in HIS account "are not really true".

It does not get any easier than that to understand.

Just stating the obvious here.

In Christ,

Bob

Paul of Eugene · Aug 20, 2004

Reply re: BobRyan

(sigh) same old inconsistency.

Have you not read the scriptures in Psalm 19?

Psalm 19:1-6
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Click to expand...

Do you believe there is a tabernacle for the sun, used when it is not up in the sky? Or do you believe, contrary to scripture, that the sun simply sits out there in space, never going into a tabernacle? Because if you believe the latter, then you and I are doing the same thing - allowing science to inform our interpretation of scripture.

If its legal for you when the science has convinced you, its legal for me when the science has convinced me.

Gup20 · Aug 20, 2004

Aside from the angels, humans are the highest creatures because we share the image of God. That's not evolutionary theory, that's Scripture.
Click to expand...

Those verses are obviously mythical/allegorical/non-literal though. What business do you have quoting that book of fairy tale or mythological history to support a logical scientific argument? There is nothing in nature to suggest that angels even exist. We don't find them in the fossil record, for example, so we can assume they are mythical allegorical creatures God used to teach us something rather than actual creatures (evolution doesn't predict any species from which angels evolved, for example). We can use the modern science and the evidence around us to see that Angels are mythological rather than literal. We can use real science to help us to explain the parts of the bible that God wants us to interpret as parable, myth, or allegory - and Angels are obviously a mythological representation of the inner struggle within our consciences.

In the mythological stories of Genesis we see allegorical stories of Jacob fighting with an angel all night for example. This is obviously non-literal as the text itself rules out the very possibility of the literal existance of angels. It says they wrestled all night and then at the end of that the angel just reached out and broke Jacob's hip. Obviously, if this had been literal, and the angel had the ability to break a hip with a single touch... there would have been no need to wrestle "all night". The very notion of wrestling with someone for hours on end is rediculous, therefore it is an obvious inferance that this is some kind of dream or 'inner struggle' within Jacob's mind.

I don't know if it is obvious to you evolutionists here... but this has all of been rhetorical. However, this is the exact argument you are making. You are proposing to invalidate the scripture as literal by use of a discipline (science) that has a strict adherence to physical ONLY - ignoring by design any possible supernatural possibility - regardless of how clear the Bible is in describing it as literal.

IF there were no adherance to the theory of evolution... and the Bible were interpreted on it's own - we ALWAYS come to the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and real - but you will never believe it because it couldn't have happened if you believe Evolution more than you believe the Word of God.

UTEOTW · Aug 20, 2004

Gup

Science cannot speak to the existance of angels. It could never authoritively claim whether they exist or not. It CAN make authoritive claims on what the evidence from the fossil record or from genetics or from geology or from astronomy are telling us. And they tell us that the earth and universe are ancient and that all life is related through common descent.

You are making the mistake of making a rhetorical statement based on something that science cannot address and using it to argue argainst things that can be addressed. It does not work.

And if you were to leave science completely out of it and just go blindly through the Bible, there are many things that you would believe that you in reality do not. Or, in the latest example, do you think there is an actual temple for the sun to go into when not above our heads?

Mercury · Aug 20, 2004

Originally posted by Gup20:
You are proposing to invalidate the scripture as literal by use of a discipline (science) that has a strict adherence to physical ONLY - ignoring by design any possible supernatural possibility - regardless of how clear the Bible is in describing it as literal.
Click to expand...

Not at all, but I think this is a core misunderstanding. Science only speaks about the natural. The Bible speaks about both the natural and the supernatural. So, when studying the natural, we have two sources of information. As they both have the same ultimate source (God, who is Truth), they will not conflict. You follow the same approach for the science you accept, as shown in the literalists vs science thread. When studying the supernatural, aside from direct experience and the Holy Spirit, we have one source: the Bible.

While the creation event itself was supernatural, the creation that resulted is natural, and as such both science and the Bible can inform us about it. Angels, on the other hand, are entirely supernatural: science cannot examine them to prove or disprove their existence. That is the reason why I don't discount angels (or the resurrection, or other miracles), and accepting evolution and other aspects of science has in no way led me to do so. Your confusion over this is the reason why your attempts to mimic my reasoning generally lead to statements I disagree with.

Edit: Looks like UTEOTW beat me on a lot of that!

IF there were no adherance to the theory of evolution... and the Bible were interpreted on it's own - we ALWAYS come to the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and real
Click to expand...

Before the theory of evolution, science had already shown that the earth was at least millions of years old. If evolution were totally dismissed, that would not remove the evidence for an ancient earth and an even more ancient universe. The science is so compelling because so many fields, so many results, all converge on the same answer: our universe is ancient, and its development has not been static.

Gup20 · Aug 20, 2004

Do you believe there is a tabernacle for the sun, used when it is not up in the sky?
Click to expand...

Tabernacle means 'dwelling place'. Yes, I believe there is an ordained place of residence for our sun in the universe.

Since the text is clearly poetic, we do not have to infer an actual tent surrounds the sun... but simply that there is a place for it in all of creation. As we saw in the AiG article, Genesis is clearly not poetry as is Psalms.

Helen · Aug 20, 2004

Before the theory of evolution, science had already shown that the earth was at least millions of years old.

No, Mercury, that is wrong. Lyell presumed the earth was millions of years old since he also presumed that the rate of deposition/sedimentation had always been the same. This is a far cry from 'proving' anything.

Gup20 · Aug 20, 2004

Science cannot speak to the existance of angels. It could never authoritively claim whether they exist or not. It CAN make authoritive claims on what the evidence from the fossil record or from genetics or from geology or from astronomy are telling us. And they tell us that the earth and universe are ancient and that all life is related through common descent.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is that you belive the Bible unless you have a humanistic reason not to.

Let me ask you again - should you believe the creation or the creator? God had enough wisdom to create life when there was no life... yet you believe the word of a geneticist who has bearly scratched the surface of understanding life over God's word. That is truely pathetic. You are basically chowing down hard on the fruit of tree if the knowlege of Good and Evil. You are supposing your knowledge (or man's knowledge) to be equal or superior to God's knowledge. This is the definition of foolishness.

THE BIBLE (GOD'S WORD) IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY ON ALL THINGS IT TOUCHES UPON... WHETHER IT BE SPRITUAL MATTERS, PHYSICAL MATTERS, HISTORICAL MATTERS, GEOLOGICAL MATTERS, BIOLOGICAL MATTERS OR OTHERWISE!!

Man is the authority on NOTHING compared to God's Word. Your statment that man can make 'authoritative claims' that contradict the word of God is rediculously absurd.

The Bible QUITE AUTHORITATIVELY claims that the God created the earth in six literal days... and man came into being on this planet within 3 literal days of the first ocean life... and on the same day as ALL land animals, including monkeys.

Or, in the latest example, do you think there is an actual temple for the sun to go into when not above our heads?
Click to expand...

I find it entirely consistent with your intellectual honesty and Biblical exegesis for you to insist that Genesis is non-literal, yet insist that Psalms is literal. Both notions are wrong.

Before the theory of evolution, science had already shown that the earth was at least millions of years old.
Click to expand...

Yeah... there must have been a good 50 years of thought on that before Darwin wrote his 'preservation of favored races' origins book. Meanwhile... back at the ranch... God has been telling us since the 6th day of creation the real story. There are those who sought to rebell against mainstream science and God and figure out a way to exclude Him in Darwin's day. Thus, the theories of millions of years and evolution came to be. Clearly it directly contradicts the most straight forward exegesis of scripture.

If evolution were totally dismissed, that would not remove the evidence for an ancient earth and an even more ancient universe.
Click to expand...

This is actually false. Up until recently (within the last few hundred years) the theory of millions of years had no evidence or credibility. It wasn't until atheists and humanists started creating evidence by interpreting it within an a priori commitment to naturalism and materialism (also uniformitarianism) that this so called 'evidence' came into existance. If you ASSUME the earth is millions of years old.... and that God didn't create it as the Bible describes... THEN and only then is there evidence for millions of years. For example - if you assume that there was never a global catastrophy such as noah's flood, then one could interpret strata as being laid down at the rates we see occuring today. However, if you know that a global catastrophic event did in fact occur, then you realize that there is an alternate explaination for the strata we see other than it has always happened at the exact same rate in the exact same way for billions of years. You now have a mechanism - a door way - to an alternate interpretation.

In fact this WAS the interpretation of the evidence... millions or billions of years did not begin to dominate until the humanists were able to get people's focus removed from scripture and have them start looking at things from their own perspective. It wasn't until evidence started being interpreted under a uniformitarian perspective, for example, that Lyell's geological theories came to be accepted.

You're statement is so very wrong. In fact, if evolution and millions of years were removed as the basic pre-supposition to interpreting evidence, ALL of the evidence would again point to the Bible's version of history. How do I know? Because that is exactly what YEC do every single day. We assume the Bible is true and everywhere we look we see evidence that supports it. You obviously cannot see it because you start with the assumption that the Bible is wrong. You start with the assumption that evolution and man is the greatest authority of knowledge in this world. I am here to tell you that is not the case.

Gup20 · Aug 20, 2004

No, Mercury, that is wrong. Lyell presumed the earth was millions of years old since he also presumed that the rate of deposition/sedimentation had always been the same. This is a far cry from 'proving' anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Mercury · Aug 20, 2004

Originally posted by Gup20:
Tabernacle means 'dwelling place'. Yes, I believe there is an ordained place of residence for our sun in the universe.
Click to expand...

Note that the sun leaves and returns to this "dwelling place" daily. Still believe it literally?

Since the text is clearly poetic, we do not have to infer an actual tent surrounds the sun... but simply that there is a place for it in all of creation. As we saw in the AiG article, Genesis is clearly not poetry as is Psalms.
Click to expand...

I think it's dangerous to be as dismissive of poetry as AiG is. Some of the most compelling prophecies fulfilled by Jesus come from Psalms that are obviously poetic! Should we likewise write off Psalm 22 as being beneath Genesis just because it is poetry? The fact that psalms and other portions of Scripture contain poetic imagery does not make their statements any less true. However, they need to be read with respect to their genre, and also in a way that does not conflict with the general revelation of God's creation.

In verses 4-6 of Psalm 19 we see that the author had a different idea of the sun than we do today, and this different idea is found in his plain statements (about the tabernacle and the sun's circuit from end to end of the heavens) and not just his similes (comparing the sun to a bridegroom and a strong man). However, God inspired the author in writing this the same way he inspired the authors of Psalm 22 and Genesis 1. If some think they're too advanced to benefit from stories and poetry with imagery that we now see is nonliteral, then I think they're really at a disadvantage compared to earlier students of the Bible.

Originally posted by Helen:
No, Mercury, that is wrong. Lyell presumed the earth was millions of years old since he also presumed that the rate of deposition/sedimentation had always been the same. This is a far cry from 'proving' anything.
Click to expand...

"Proving" and "presumed" are your words, and I didn't use either specifically because they are more loaded. My point was that the evidence for the age of the earth and our universe is not dependent on evolution -- indeed, many Christians accepted an older age for the earth even before evolution became an issue. If you'd like to discuss uniformitarianism with someone, I'm probably not the right person, and this probably isn't the right thread.

Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Gup20 Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

Gup20 Active Member

Gup20 Active Member

Gup20 Active Member

Mercury New Member

Mercury New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

Gup20 Active Member

UTEOTW New Member

Mercury New Member

Gup20 Active Member

Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

Gup20 Active Member

Gup20 Active Member

Mercury New Member

Useful Searches

Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Gup20 Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

Gup20 Active Member

Gup20 Active Member

Gup20 Active Member

Mercury New Member

Mercury New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

Gup20 Active Member

UTEOTW New Member

Mercury New Member

Gup20 Active Member

Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

Gup20 Active Member

Gup20 Active Member

Mercury New Member