Genesis -- for real?

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN
Science, of course, is not a process of proof, but of accumulating evidence. Humans will never have logical certainty, except in cases where we get to specify the rules. God's creation is not one of those cases.
Also unorthodox is the assertion that Genesis is to be taken literally. This has never been an article of faith for any Christian Church prior to the 20th century, and for few after that time.
My primary problem with creationism is that it tends to make it harder to spread the Gospel. Creationism both repells potential converts who know that Genesis cannot be literal, and often causes loss of faith in Christians who discover the truth and assume that creationism is part of Christian doctrine.


JOHN WELLS
The Barbarian said, "causes loss of faith in Christians who discover the truth"
And what would be this truth they discover? I believe what you have subjectively decided must be the truth, based on your biased view after studying "much speculation running after too few facts" (to quote the atheist evolution scientist Robert Shapiro, an admission of his own work), you now relegate to everyone that it is the only logical conclusion, implying that all other views are: 1) not truth, 2) unconscionable, 3) deficient in their reasoning. This mindset is precisely why evolutionists have constantly had to revise their claims due to their lack of objectivity.


HANKD
KJV Romans 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:

Evolution cannot be reconciled with this passage. The scripture claims that death is a result of the sin of a real person named Adam. Adam came first then sin and death.

Evolution claims that man is a result of millions of years of the life-death cycle.



THE BARBARIAN
A literal reading of Genesis is inconsistant with God and His creation. Not long ago, I read a very poignant account from a former creationist geologist who had become deeply disillusioned by his beliefs. He mentions others like him who had deep and sometimes lasting crises of faith thereby.
I can only point to the evidence. It is compelling. That's why so many creationists have a crisis of faith when they learn about the universe.
[However] It is not "unconscionable" to be a creationist. They have no less chance of salvation than orthodox Christians. But it is true that the evidence overwhelmingly points to God's creation of living things by evolution. Even the creation scientists have acknowledged that new species, genera, and families evolve.

Science changes because new evidence requires that theories be modified to fit the facts. This is a good thing, and without objectivity, it could not happen. We have to be open to the possibility of being wrong. As we learn more and more about the universe, the errors become smaller and smaller.


JOHN WELLS
So where are the transitional fossils? There should be plenty of them. If evolution is true, the fossil record should show transitional species abundantly in every species, genera, and family. Scientists should not have to "grasp at straws" to make their case!

The Barbarian said, "Also unorthodox is the assertion that Genesis is to be taken literally."

I think you will find your opinion in the minority among evangelical churches in America, and certainly with the Baptist persuasion. But more importantly, what did Jesus think about Genesis?

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one." (Mark 10:6-8 NIV)

These are "red letter words" in my Bible! You see, it really comes down to this: do you believe "too much speculation running after too few facts" (Robert Shapiro - "Origins" page 99.), or do you believe Jesus?


THE BARBARIAN
Southern Baptists, perhaps. But even among that minority among the world's Baptists, we find that isn't always the case. A conservative Southern Baptist taught me about the evolution of mososaurs in North Texas. Baylor U. teaches evolution.

Southern Baptists aren't a monolith; they are among the most independant of Christians, and they have diverse opinions on the matter.


But more importantly, what did Jesus think about Genesis?

Do you have the part where Jesus said that Genesis was literal? I can't find that one in any of my Bibles, from the KJV forward.


You see, it really comes down to this: do you believe "too much speculation running after too few facts"

Nope. I would never assume that Jesus mentioning Genesis would be evidence that it was literal. That is indeed"too much speculation"
I believe Jesus. He doesn't say Genesis is literal. Good enough for me.


JOHN WELLS
Actually, I don't think its my place to have to defend that Genesis is literal. Show me the disclaimer in the Bible that says it isn't? The burden of proof is on you, and I assume you will say, "because the evidence of evolution is compelling," to which I say maybe to you, but not to me, and so we have come full circle.

Barbarian - Jesus. He doesn't say Genesis is literal.

He didn't say the sky isn't red either. Parables and "what ifs" are clearly identified in scripture. Everything else is fact. If that's not the case, then we enter the never ending circular argument of what is literal and what is not throughout scripture? How do you know that the miracles Jesus is said to have performed are real?

I don't disagree with you that there are many Christians who have been duped into believing theistic evolution, across all denominations. I do disagree that you guys are the majority view. The count on the survey I conducted was 8-3 in favor of 6-day creation. You would make it 8-4 and that's probably a pretty good random sample.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38 NIV)

Barbarian, where does this list become real? Seems to me, if you eliminate Adam and others on this list you believe to be fictional and outside the bounds of "literal scripture," then the credibility of the Bible is in shambles.


THE BARBARIAN
Since we don't have a statement on the subject, it's up for discussion. Fortunately, one can look to Genesis itself to show that it is not literal.


The burden of proof is on you,

Nope. If it makes no statement either way, then the burden of proof is on both sides.

It's true that if reality and Scripture seem to conflict, we have misunderstood one or both of them. But in this case, it's Scripture itself that refutes a literal Genesis.

So in the absence of a statement from [Jesus], we have to look elsewhere.
Are you very sure all Jesus' parables are specifically identified as such? Besides, Genesis itself tells us that it is not literal.

Even the parables are true. They are just figurative. So is Genesis. The fact that it is figurative in many places does not mean that it's false.

Do you think God was really afraid men would build the tower of Babel to reach heaven, or that once they completed it, they could achieve anything?


How do you know that the miracles Jesus is said to have performed are real?

We have the Gospels, which are clearly presented as history. No one believes that every part of the Bible is literal, or every part is figurative.


I don't disagree with you that there are many Christians who have been duped into believing theistic evolution, across all denominations.

"Duped" is a harsh and unChristian word. Remember, the evidence is for God's creation, and against creationism.
That is why most Christians accept that evolution is consistant with God's creation.


Robert Shapiro - "Origins" page 99.

Ah, that is about the origin of life. Not about evolution. Would you be kind enough to post not just that snippet, but the paragraph and those preceding and after? I'd be interested in what he's talking about specifically, here.

That was very puzzling, because Shapiro is a theistic evolutionist, but one like Behe, who agrees that common descent is a fact, but asserts that God had to start life miraculously, and step in at critical points to keep it on track.
My guess is that is what this bit of quote is about.


Barbarian, where does this list become real? Seems to me, if you eliminate Adam and others on this list you believe to be fictional and outside the bounds of "literal scripture," then the credibility of the Bible is in shambles.

There are two geneologies for Jesus in the Bible, and they don't agree. That's about as fundamental a problem as there can be, if one is committed to the idea that all of the Bible must be in every respect correct, if any of it is true.

Incidentally, it is not necessary that Genesis be literal for Adam to have been an actual person. And it certainly doesn't mean that the credibility of the Bible is in a "shambles" because someone didn't get a geneology right.
Atheists delight in finding irrelevant errors in Scripture, and if you play that game, it's a losing one. But show me an error when the Bible speaks of how God and man relate to each other. That's what it's really about. Don't worry about the nits. We know there are errors. They have been correcting them at least since the KJV.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said, "Incidentally, it is not necessary that Genesis be literal for Adam to have been an actual person."

Shouldn't the genealogy have concluded something like: "the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of Piltdown Man, the son of Peking Man, the son of Lucy, the son of an amphibian, the son of an amoeba, the son of a rock, the son of God?"

Regarding the incorrect genealogy error that you allude to: Matthew’s moves forward, from Abraham to Joseph. Luke’s entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke’s is seen as Mary’s genealogy, and Matthew’s version represents Joseph’s.


THE BARBARIAN
That might work, if it was represented as such, but it isn't. So that won't work, unless you want to claim that they made a mistake in attribution. And then inerrancy is gone, anyway.
But it doesn't matter. This sort of thing gets absurd, with all sorts of obvious "errors" to be found. None of them have anything to do with the message God wants us to take from the Bible.


JOHN WELLS
Even the Ryrie Study Bible notes affirm this as well as the way each one starts off. Ah, the good ol' errancy/inerrancy debate . . . runs much like the creationism/evolutionism debate. Both sides in both cases have preconceived truths from which they build their framework of analysis. For instance, there are biblical scholars who effectively remove every obstacle to every objection of error. Whether you believe it depends on your predispostion, or could it be the Holy Spirit?


THE BARBARIAN
In questions like this, one should let Scripture be its own interpreter. And since it clearly says that both geneologies are for Jesus through Joseph, we'd have to abandon inerrancy in order to save it.
My point is that such things are not destructive to Christian belief. And whether we agree or not on this issue makes no difference to salvation.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said, “one can look to Genesis itself to show that it is not literal,” and elsewhere: “one should let Scripture be its own interpreter.”

OK let’s do that. From Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."
And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day. (Gen 1:1-31 NIV, abbreviated for brevity)

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7 KJV)

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Gen 2:21-22 NIV)

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
(Gen 2:24 NIV)

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Gen 3:19 NIV)

Is the above literal or not? In Barbarian’s own words, scripture should interpret (determine) that:

Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: (Jer 32:17 KJV)

I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (Isa 44:24b NIV)

Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word. (Isa 66:2 NIV)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3 NIV)

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (1 Tim 2:13-14 NIV)

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” (1 Cor 15:45 NIV)

For this one man, Adam, brought to many through his sin. But this other man, Jesus Christ, brought forgiveness to many through God's bountiful gift. (Rom 5:15b NLT)

Jesus said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. (Mark 10:6-8 NIV)

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:20 NIV)

I see a rock-solid case for scripture interpreting scripture here as absolutely literal. Scripture that says God “formed Adam” is validated in several places. Nowhere does scripture say that God evolved Adam! Any other conclusion requires a liberal application of meaning that doesn’t exist. The only other alternative would be to conclude that the NT is strewn with non-literal statements interwoven between literal statements with reckless regard for distinction between the two. But I think we are “without excuse” to conclude that God “formed” the first human beings at the beginning of creation– because that is what is bluntly stated and there isn’t so much as a hint otherwise.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN
These are among the verses the orthodox use to affirm a non-literal Bible. Considering that there are people of greater learning, wisdom and love of God than I on both sides of the question, it might be best to note that it is not a question on which one's salvation depends, and leave it at that.


HELEN
I am REALLY curious as to how those verses are used to “affirm a non-literal Bible, Barbarian. Please back up your claim there with at least some links which actually explain what you are talking about.

And, actually, salvation may well depend on understanding the veracity of God's Word as it is written. If death came before sin, Jesus needn't have died for us. By denying the reason for the crucifixion, evolution denies the work of Christ. Saying that the death was only spiritual is nonsense in its truest meaning. Paul tells us death entered THE WORLD because of Adam's sin. He did not say death came to men because of that, but that death entered the world. And again, I would ask you what else would be meant -- other than physical death -- by Paul's triumphant "Grave where is your victory; death where is your sting?" Spirits don't get buried. Bodies do.

The crucifixion and Resurrection are entirely tied to a straightforward understanding of Scripture in that sin caused all death.

Look at it this way, if you like. We know that disease and many other physical problems are the result of man's rebellion against God. The Bible makes this extraordinarily clear. If disease, which is of the body, then yes, death, too, of the body is also part of it. So no matter which way you cut this cake, you still get the same flavor -- the Bible means what it says and says what it means. It is not a matter of some RC authorities reinterpreting it to fit their own fancy, but of what God Himself has caused to be written in a straightforward communication to men.
And God does know how to communicate with men.


THE BARBARIAN
Personally, I think you have every bit as good a chance of salvation as I do. Haggling about how God managed creation is not going to make a difference.

Adam's spiritual death came after sin. Remember, God pointed out to Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam does this, but lives on for many years. But he was spiritually dead, as all humans were until Christ saved us.


By denying the reason for the crucifixion, evolution denies the work of Christ.

Evolution has nothing at all to say about the crucifixion. If it did, scientists couldn't be Christians. But most of them are.


Saying that the death was only spiritual is nonsense in its truest meaning.

It is only that way that it makes sense. Adam didn't literally die the day he ate from the tree; that was many years later. He died spiritually. If Christ came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die. But His death and Resurrection were to save us from that spiritual death.


Paul tells us death entered THE WORLD because of Adam's sin. He did not say death came to men because of that, but that death entered the world. And again, I would ask you what else would be meant -- other than physical death -- by Paul's triumphant "Grave where is your victory; death where is your sting?"

Good question. He's saying that we will still die physically, as we did before, but that we are no longer spiritually dead, and that physical death is of no consequence to us as redeemed people.


Spirits don't get buried. Bodies do.

But souls get lost. As ours were until He came.


The crucifixion and Resurrection are entirely tied to a straightforward understanding of Scripture in that sin caused all death.

That is not the view of most Christians. But since many honest and pious people believe it so, I respect your opinion.


Look at it this way, if you like. We know that disease and many other physical problems are the result of man's rebellion against God.

So far, all of them for which we have evidence, have been found to have natural causes. And natural treatments.


The Bible makes this extraordinarily clear. If disease, which is of the body, then yes, death, too, of the body is also part of it.

It would seem not, at least to me.


So no matter which way you cut this cake, you still get the same flavor -- the Bible means what it says and says what it means.

We agree on that, at least.


It is not a matter of some RC authorities reinterpreting it to fit their own fancy, but of what God Himself has caused to be written in a straightforward communication to men.

Times have changed, and so have doctrines since there were only Roman Catholics. I don't think it's particularly harmful; maybe God has so many denominations because He is mindful that we find Him in different ways.

JOHN WELLS
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Rom 8:22 KJV)

In light of the following verse, it can be concluded that Gen 2:17 was referring to separation from God and that he would begin the atrophy process, or begin to die.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Gen 3:19 KJV)

Scripture testifies to its own truths. My desire is for you to see the truth of what God's Word speaks clearly to us. Granted there are difficult sayings in the Bible, but this area is not one of them. You only make it difficult by dodging the obvious. Stop "walking by sight" and start walking by a reasonable faith. Your present faith requires the compromise of God's Word by claiming that discriminate parts of it are not literal. Helen's kind of faith, and my kind of faith recognize the sovereignty of God over ALL things, not blindly, but intelligently with all our hearts, souls, and minds. You may well have given your heart and soul to God, but your mind is still in conflict with Him. You have to tinker with what His Holy Word clearly says to operate in your belief system.

Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. (James 4:8,10 NIV)


HELEN
It was absolutely necessary that both Joseph's and Mary's geneologies be given in the New Testament. The Messiah had to prove not only legal right, but also bloodline right to the throne of David. The legal right came through the father and the bloodline was considered through the mother. Matthew, dealing with the legal side, gives the ancestral list of Joseph, although not completely. In line with common practice of the time with the Jews, the list is divided into matching groups and includes the noteworthy names only. Please also keep in mind that adoption then, as now, made a child legally a full member of the family, so that Jesus' legal right was established under Joseph.

Luke, on the other hand, being Greek and a doctor, and being aware of the virgin birth, considered the importance of Mary's line of inheritance. Because, in Genesis, the Lord had instructed that man is to leave his own family and cleave only unto his wife, the Jewish tradition was that he actually joined her family rather then she joining his (even though they often lived with the husband's family due to the legal inheritance of land). Thus Luke states that Jesus "was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli..." Heli was Mary's father, and thus Jesus' bloodline is given as was standard, listing the father as the son of the wife's father, as he had joined the wife's family.


THE BARBARIAN
As I've noted, Genesis itself points out that the "death" mentioned by God is not a physical death. Why should I change that?

Often, one has a very hard time accepting the different understandings of Scripture among Christians. The humility to admit that there are wise and good and understanding people on both sides is the beginning of real understanding.


HELEN
Barbarian, will you ever, ever post actual Scriptural references for what you say you believe?

Genesis says six days, as marked by rotations of the earth (evening and morning). Genesis says biological entities were created according to kind and told to reproduce within kind. Genesis says man will die when he disobeys God and lo and behold, we die! Physically and really. Spiritual death was only the first part for Adam. Physical death started with disobedience as his cells began the path toward an incapability to divide after a certain number of divisions (currently about forty, I think). Genesis is extraordinarily clear and it takes the Roman Catholic church or some other cult or cult-like institution to rip Genesis out of historical narrative and into some kind of 'allegorical' idea so that their doctrines and purposes can be supported.

Barbarian -- Pat -- I CHALLENGE you to read your entire Bible, start to finish. I challenge you to see what God says and not what your church authorities say that He 'means'.

And then I challenge you to give me any of the following:

1. The mutations needed to get a hip joint into a fish of any kind so that fish can evolve.

2. Any kind of pathway by which a protein can be formed without being coded for by DNA
or
2a. Any kind of way a cell can make a de novo protein so that the cell can contribute to either its own evolution or the evolution of its organism.

3. An explanation of how evolution managed to get different organisms to use entirely different molecular pathways to produce RNA.

4. An explanation as to why the fossil record shows NO (nada, none, zilch) examples of transitional dentition in any organisms. All jaw joints and teeth appear fully formed and functional in every fossil. All eruptions stop at precisely the right place for proper functioning.

In short, stop with the unfounded assertions, either theologically or scientifically. I don't know about anyone else here, but if you want me to take you seriously or give your opinions any respect at all, produced some real science and some real Bible knowledge. In four years or more you have not changed anything you have said. I'm sure that in four years you have learned something.


THE BARBARIAN
I mentioned that Gen. 2:17 and Gen 5:5 demonstrate that the book has to be figurative.

Genesis says six days, as marked by rotations of the earth (evening and morning).

As Augustine pointed out, this is rather difficult to reconcile with no sun to have mornings and evenings.


Genesis says biological entities were created according to kind and told to reproduce within kind.

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that in Genesis. There's no discussion of reproducing in kind in the creation story of Genesis. In fact, God causes living things to be produced from the earth and the waters, which is what abiogenesis also says. But nothing about reproduction, save for humans, who are commanded to "replenish the earth". Neither does it deny that new species can evolve from old ones.


Genesis says man will die when he disobeys God and lo and behold, we die! Physically and really. Spiritual death was only the first part for Adam. Physical death started with disobedience as his cells began the path toward an incapability to divide after a certain number of divisions (currently about forty, I think).

Actually, this is one of the reasons that Christians don't accept Genesis is literal. Yes, I know some of them do, but for most of us, the fact that Adam did not physically die the day he ate of the tree tells us that the "death" of which God spoke was spiritual, not physical, and Genesis is an allegory, not literal.


Barbarian -- Pat -- I CHALLENGE you to read your entire Bible, start to finish. I challenge you to see what God says and not what your church authorities say that He 'means'.

Having read it several times, I always find something new and fresh when I do it, but I don't see anything that contradicts orthodoxy.


And then I challenge you to give me any of the following:

1. The mutations needed to get a hip joint into a fish of any kind so that fish can evolve.

Let's see... there would be one to ossify part of the centrum elements and neural arches already existing in chordates. We know of animal like that, so it's sure that they can form. In some of them, the zygopotheses have extended to the point that the ossified tissues interlock. So that's most likely two for that, at the minimum.
"A series of remarkably well preserved fossils allows us to trace these evolutionary transformations. The banes are preserved, and many of them show scars and patterns where fin and limb muscles were attached."
Leonard B. Radinsky, "The Evolution of Vertebrate Design".

So long before there were hips, we see that the fins are tied to the spine by soft tissues.

"By their consistant position, and similar nerve innervation pattern, it is clear that the same muscles that control paired fin movement in fishes have been modified to support the body and move the tetrapod limb." Radinski

Radinsky goes on to show that the mode of propulsion by fish is also the mode we see in primitive amphibians, a sort of undulation of the spine that moves the limbs forward in the same manner as the body is used to gain force against the water.

In "At the Water's Edge", the evidence continues, but that book is not here. So let me go on from memory, and I'll enlarge on that a bit later. The 'ischium' of the teleost fishes is a single element, the puboischiac bar. The fins are supported by basal and/or radial elements, which may remain cartilagenous or have ossified to form a primitive pelvis attached more or less firmly to the puboischiac bar. This supports the fins in their movement, and makes the tail, body, and fin one unit for movement. The femur of the pelvic fins of the lobed-fin fishes is by now attached to an element which has grown to the ilium process. So we'd have to add another two mutations to ossify the elements sufficiently to make them a unit with the spine.

The fish Acanthostega has all the characteristics of it's class, including a lateral line system, internal gills, and a large, tail fin complete with the fin rays of a fish. Yet it has legs. The pelvic girdle has increased in size, but is still not strong enough to have allowed the fish to leave the water. Nor are the zygopophyses of the spine robust enough for that yet. But we'd have to have at least one more mutation to complete the further ossification and connection of the bones. The gene Wnt-8A serves this function in amphibians, and something like it would have to have evolved, so that's one more.
And now we have a fish with a functional hip joint. That's a minimum of, five. Could have taken more, but it doesn't matter. Fact is, it happened.


2. Any kind of pathway by which a protein can be formed without being coded for by DNA

Evoluitonary theory makes no such predictions, since it is not concerned with abiogenesis. But we could discuss that in another string, if you like.


2a. Any kind of way a cell can make a de novo protein so that the cell can contribute to either its own evolution or the evolution of its organism.

Evolution never seems to make something de novo; it always modifies something existing to make it work. Here's an interesting example that has been directly observed;

"For example, in the common bacteria E coli, there are three genes in the B-gal system : a permease (lacY), which allows B-galactosides into the cell; a B-galactosidase (lacZ), which digests the B-galactosides into usable sugars (galactose and glucose, through allo-lactose); and an enhancer (lacI), which increases production of the other two lac proteins about 500 to 1000x in the presense of B-galactosides. This is an 'irreproducbly complex' system - remove any one of the proteins (lacY, lacZ, or lacI), and the cell can't use B-galactosides as a carbon source.

Back in 1982, Barry Hall removed the lacZ gene from a strain of E coli, then plated them to see how long it would take the bacteria to re-develop lacZ function. It took less than 3 weeks.

The bacteria had another protein (completely unrelated to lacZ) that could catalyze the needed reaction, but at about one thousandth the needed levels (even if 100% of the protein in the bacteria were this, it wouldn't be enough). A mutation increased its ability to catalyze the reaction to usable levels. A second, later mutation altered the protein again, so that the end product could activate the lac system again - IT WAS NOW REGULATED (only active in the presence of substrate); the old lacI and lacY proteins were now part of a new system (which is now, again, irreproducibly complex)."

"Evolution on a Petri Dish : The evolved B-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the lab", Barry G Hall, Evolutionary Biology (1982) #15, pg 85-150.
A nice demonstration of the way irreducibly complex pathways can evolve in a stepwise fashion.


3. An explanation of how evolution managed to get different organisms to use entirely different molecular pathways to produce RNA.

As noted above, such evolutionary changes are not a difficult thing at all. Note that underlying much of the apparent different, we see for example that the same genes control eye development in arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, and vertebrates. Such underlying unity is astonishing, and impossible to ignore.


4. An explanation as to why the fossil record shows NO (nada, none, zilch) examples of transitional dentition in any organisms.

Bad assumption. We see that process going on in fossil horses. In fact, we see that it goes on within individual genera of fossil horses. Would you like some detail on that?


All jaw joints and teeth appear fully formed and functional in every fossil. All eruptions stop at precisely the right place for proper functioning.

You must have been very lucky with your wisdom teeth. Many humans are not. We evolved smaller jaws, but the same number of teeth as earlier hominids. The crowding is obvious.
And we see, in therapsid reptiles like Probanognathus, both the reptillian and the mammalian jaw joints in the same animal, as perfect a transition as could exist.

And most astonishing of all, someone showed me a photomicrograph of the lower jaw of the opossum fetus. The malleus, incus, and tympanic bones were there, precisely as we find them in the rear jaw of the therapsid cynodont Thrinaxodon. Later in development, they disarticulate from the lower jaw and migrate to the ear to form the structures there. This has no explanation other than an evolutionary one.


HELEN
1. I did not ask for the supposed evolutionary stages of development. I asked for the actual mutations. I’m talking about what happened, specifically, with the DNA. That would give evolution some semblance of testability, which it does not have now.

2. De novo proteins are absolutely necessary to get from a bacteria to a bear. No way around it. A bear is NOT simply an altered bacteria or proto-bacteria. Somewhere along the line new proteins had to be coded for which were not there before. This is not something you can ignore by playing games with ‘just variations’ stuff.

3. You hadn’t a clue what I was talking about, obviously.

4. It was just a dentist who studied the fossil record who brought that up this summer at a conference. I’m sure you know better that he does, though.

 

[Administrator2]

PASTOR LARRY
There's no discussion of reproducing in kind in the creation story of Genesis. In fact, God causes living things to be produced from the earth and the waters, which is what abiogenesis also says. But nothing about reproduction, save for humans, who are commanded to "replenish the earth". Neither does it deny that new species can evolve from old ones.

Consider the following, all from Gen 1

v. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

The earth does bring forth plants but notice they are mature (plants, vegetation, and trees; not seeds or prior forms). Notice, “after their kind” three times in this discussion.

20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Notice the active verb in v. 21 (God created, not caused to evolve). Notice “after their kind” two more times.

22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

Notice the command to multiple given to fish and foul in direct contradiction to your statement there’s no discussion of “reproduction save for humans.”

24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Notice “after their kind” now four times (that makes nine times before human creation that “after their kind” is given as a fundamental creative stipulation). Notice the active verb in v. 25 (God made). Scripture does talk about reproducing after its kind (min) and there is no place for cross kind mutations or transitions.

On death, it was an immediate spiritual death but the beginning of the process of physical death. We do not physically die the day we sin now; why would we expect Adam to be any different. The promise of death was one of certainty, not one of immediacy (surely die).


THE BARBARIAN
v. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

That's creation, not reproduction. I guess if He went on and said that the seeds were planted and new plants came from them, it would have been about reproduction. This seems to be about abiogenesis, rather than reproduction. And it certainly doesn't say that all living things must reproduce without evolution of new species.


The earth does bring forth plants but notice they are mature (plants, vegetation, and trees; not seeds or prior forms). Notice, “after their kind” three times in this discussion.

It appears that "kind" isn't what the creationists think it is, after all. Tetrapods are a kind, as are trees. That's a lot more evolution than most creationists would like.


20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

No reproduction there, either. Nor does it in any way reject evolution. Seems consistant with science today.


Notice the active verb in v. 21 (God created, not caused to evolve).

It even says the means by which He did it. He causes the earth and water to produce living things. Which would again, be consistant with what we know so far. Further, note that the origin of living things is not evolution.
Evolution is the changes experienced by populations of living things. This clearly doesn't say what you were taught it does.


Notice “after their kind” two more times.

We still use "kind" today, in the same informal sense. But like Scripture, we know that it doesn't rule out evolution.


22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

Ah, that one, I forgot mentioned reproduction. On that one, you are right.


Notice the command to multiple given to fish and foul in direct contradiction to your statement there’s no discussion of “reproduction save for humans.”

Indeed. One of the hazards of quoting from memory.
[Administrator: Barbarian never quoted any Bible verse in this regard.]


24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Yep. That's the verse I was thinking about. Nothing about reproduction.


Notice “after their kind” now four times (that makes nine times before human creation that “after their kind” is given as a fundamental creative stipulation).

The earth and waters did produce living things. We can see how some of them evolved in the fossil record. God didn't fill in the details how that happened, but He gave us minds so that we could learn for ourselves.


Notice the active verb in v. 25 (God made).

God made all things. He made me. But he used natural means to do so. It's not a bad thing. After all, it's His way.


Scripture does talk about reproducing after its kind (min) and there is no place for cross kind mutations or transitions.

I note that your mention of reproduction does not say things rerproduce after their kind. Do you have a verse that says things reproduce only after their kind?


On death, it was an immediate spiritual death but the beginning of the process of physical death.

But that is not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree, not that Adam would start to die at that time. If we add that condition to Scripture, it would make some sense, but I think it is unwise to do so.


We do not physically die the day we sin now; why would we expect Adam to be any different.

Of course. The death is spiritual, not physical. As God notes in Genesis.


The promise of death was one of certainty, not one of immediacy (surely die).

Scripture says:
Gen: 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

It would take some editing to get it to say otherwise.

I prefer the Biblical [answer]. The logical answer is if God told Adam he would die in the day he ate from the tree, it means just that. Some may disagree, and I respect that, but it's not logical do do so.

I'm still looking for that place in the creation story that says living things only reproduce after their "kind". Is is possible the verse about living things reproducing only in kind is elsewhere in Genesis? Do you know where?

There is a slight contradiction in the two stories about the creation of fowl as well; Gen 1:20 says that they were brought forth from the waters, but Gen:2:19 says that they were brought forth out of the ground.

The point is that when we read such allegories, we can't try to make a scientific treatise of them. Otherwise, it appears that God is contradicting Himself.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said, "I prefer the Biblical one…

Then why do you not "prefer the biblical one" in But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6 KJV)
Some may disagree, and I respect that, but it's not logical do do so.


THE BARBARIAN
Because one has to conclude that the "beginning" Jesus spoke of was different than the "beginning" mentioned in Genesis, since God clearly tells us that men and women were not present at the beginning.

Whenever we see what seems to be a contradiction in Scripture, it's usually because the context of the words used are different. God says that men and women were not present at the beginning. Jesus says that they were.
Different beginnings, unless you want to suppose the Father and the Son disagree on this point.
Do you know where in the Genesis story it says that organisms reproduce according to their "kind"? I've looked in all my Bibles, and it's not there.



JOHN WELLS
In my opinion, the sixth day of creation qualifies as "the beginning of creation" that Jesus was referring to.


THE BARBARIAN
Well, then we agree. Jesus was talking about when humans first appeared, not the opening words of Genesis, when there were no humans at all.

Just a misunderstanding.


HANKD
KJV Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

…thou shalt surely die.

…mimminu muth tamoth

mimminu - From (as a result of) - 5520 Brown Driver Briggs

muth - To die or dying - Infinitive Absolute : The infinitive is a verbal noun ending in …ing.
A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, Weingreen, Oxford-Clarendon Press, Pg. 79.

tamoth - to die - Verb, QAL imperfect second person masculine singular

OR

…from that day, dying thou shalt die.

Adam's death was a process which began on the day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

THE BARBARIAN
That is not what it says, however. Changing scripture to meet one's doctrine is always a bad idea. Unless you think the KJV was in error on that point. But I'd need some evidence for that. A nonstandard interpretation of Hebrew is not very convincing.

Until I see something substantive, I'll go with Scripture as it is.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said, "Changing scripture to meet one's doctrine is always a bad idea."

Then why do you do it? And I'll go with the six literal days of creation, God creating plants, animals, humans out of nothing, and Jesus confirming it in Mark 10:6, which is scripture just as it is!

Why don't you consistently claim scripture as it is, instead of when you "think" it benefits your desire for understanding? You can't have it both ways and claim sound reasoning.


Barbarian said, "Well, then we agree. Jesus was talking about when humans first appeared, not the opening words of Genesis, when there were no humans at all."

So you agree that at the start of day one there was nothing, and by day six (literal 24-hour days as evidenced by "there was evening and there was morning" and the meaning of the Hebrew yom when used with a number) God had created "every living thing?" Not much time for evolution to take place! If you agree on that then we do indeed agree. If not, you are trying to escape.


THE BARBARIAN
Then why do you do it? And I'll go with the six literal days of creation, God creating plants, animals, humans out of nothing, and Jesus confirming it in Mark 10:6, which is scripture just as it is!

Because Genesis tells us that it is not literal, I accept that.


Why don't you consistently claim scripture as it is, instead of when you "think" it benefits your desire for understanding? You can't have it both ways and claim sound reasoning.

We all claim scripture as it is, to the best of our limited understanding about God and His creation. I doubt if anyone here does what you suggest.


So you agree that at the start of day one there was nothing,

In the beginning, there was nothing but God. The "waters" are metaphorical for the absence of any thing. Wasn't any "day" though, because as St. Augustine pointed out, there was no sun to have a day or a morning or an evening.


and by day six (literal 24-hour days as evidenced by "there was evening and there was morning" and the meaning of the Hebrew yom when used with a number)

Since Genesis is not literal, I don't go with literal days.


God had created "every living thing?" Not much time for evolution to take place!

That's a minor flaw in the literal reading, compared to the absurdity of a morning and evening without a sun to have them.
I'm where I started. I accept Genesis as it is. I'm morely pointing out that the "beginning" Jesus spoke of is not the "Beginning" with which Genesis begins.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian: "Because Genesis tells us that it is not literal, I accept that.”

Would you quote this reference?


Barbarian: “That's a minor flaw in the literal reading, compared to the absurdity of a morning and evening without a sun to have them.”

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Gen 1:3-5 NIV)

Before God created the sun, He created light and separated it from darkness, and declared there to be an evening and a morning. I really don’t care if you and St. Augustine call God a liar, it was day one (24 hours) of creation.

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. (Rev 21:23-25 NIV)

There will also be no more sun in the final heaven and earth either. Notice there will still be “days!” Am I to assume you want nothing to do with “the absurdity of a morning and evening without a sun to have them” for eternity?


Barbarian: “I'm merely pointing out that the "beginning" Jesus spoke of is not the "Beginning" with which Genesis begins.”

When you point something out, would it not be prudent to give a reference? Do you know what the verse following Jesus’ statement I gave you says?

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN
Would you quote this reference?

We've already talked about it. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does, and lives on for many years after. One of the creation stories in Genesis says that birds were brought forth from the waters (Gen: 1:21) and the other says it was from the ground (Gen. 2:19) If taken literally, these would be logically contradictory.


And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light…

But again, no sun, which doesn't happen until the fourth day. Again, taken literally, there is a logical contradiction.


Before God created the sun, He created light and separated it from darkness, and declared there to be an evening and a morning. I really don’t care if you and St. Augustine call God a liar, it was day one (24 hours) of creation.

No one is calling God a liar. It is merely evidence that Genesis is not literal.


The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. (Rev 21:23-25 NIV)

Indeed. But the Earth does need the sun for light.

I'm interested in the verse that says the Earth will have no sun, but still have mornings and evenings. Tell me about it.
[ Administrator: Barbarian might want to read Revelation 21 which shows the city coming down fro heaven to earth.]


When you point something out, would it not be prudent to give a reference? Do you know what the verse following Jesus’ statement I gave you says?

Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

And from Mark, Jesus says that a man shall leave his mother and he and his wife shall be one flesh. What God has brought together, let no man put asunder.
I don't remember precisely the wording, but I can look it up if you wish. I was never good at remembering the verse numbers. Sorry.


HANKD
Adam's death was a process which began on the day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

GENESIS 2:17 of the tree. 9 3:1-3,11,17,19 thou shalt surely die.
Heb. dying thou shalt die.
The Treasury of Scriptural knowledge.

Genesis 2:17 (1.) Adam is threatened with death in case of disobedience:
Dying thou shalt die, denoting a sure and dreadful sentence,
Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1997.

Genesis 2:17
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.
Young's Literal Translation.


PASTOR LARRY
Barbarian,
I somehow had forgotten how difficult it is to talk theology with someone who rejects Scripture as the authority. So once again, as I have before, I will not comment much except on two things (I think).

1. On reproduction, you devoted a large amount of space to denying what Scripture says. So long as you essentially say that your opinion is more important than what Scripture says, there is not much to be said here. “After its kind” is pretty clear, whether you accept it or not.

2. On the Hebrew moth tamuth, it is a construct of finite verb+infinitive absolute, used for emphasis. It is pretty common in Hebrew. What the Hebrew says is, “Dying you will die.” It means you will “certainly die.”

It is most interesting that you end that post with, “Until I see something substantive, I'll go with Scripture as it is.” How ironic that you appeal to “Scripture as it is” when you have devoted so much time to denying Scripture as it is on such with so little substance as the changing opinions of man.



JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said, "We've already talked about it. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does, and lives on for many years after. One of the creation stories in Genesis says that birds were brought forth from the waters (Gen: 1:21) and the other says it was from the ground (Gen. 2:19) If taken literally, these would be logically contradictory."

Only one who has given no time to the study of Genesis would say what you have said. You have taken two verses from two different toledots that have different autographs, different themes and a different emphasis.
Genesis 1 is the creation story with a focus on God. In Genesis 2, man is the focus. The point of Gen. 2:19 that God makes to Adam is that the animals were made from the same dust that God made him from.

You have been shown that your favorite disclaimer verse Gen 2:17 does not hold up under scrutiny to your claim. Once again you would have to study the Hebrew language or at least listen to those who have. But you stubbornly cling to your unenlightened exegesis. You display far too much intelligence to play your "I don't get it game!" You don't want to get it.

You appeal to literal interpretation in your argument when you have previously stated that Gen 1-11 cannot be literal. You have been shown that many OT and NT writers referenced these chapters and in every case the context is that they are referenced as fact. Jesus was one of those (Mark 10:6) and you give the weakest defense imaginable that Jesus didn’t mean what He said.

The creation account in Genesis is full of “God created” and “God formed,” clearly declaring spontaneous creation of birds, animals, fish, plants, and man. Obviously you must declare all this non-literal to believe what you do. But it doesn't change the truth.

You need not apologize to me for not being able to remember the verses. But I would recommend spending more time studying God’s Word than you do science. It is of far more lasting value! Your Catholic heritage may stand in the way of the reality of that. Contrary to what you are taught, scripture provides the only objective basis for authority, not the church.

The Bible gives overwhelming evidence as to why Scripture must be always our sole authority for faith. The Word of God is pure, perfect, inerrant, infallible, living, truth, light, holy, eternal, and forever settled in heaven. It illuminates, cleanses, saves, frees, guides, converts, heals, quickens, judges, and sanctifies. It also brings conviction, gives knowledge, gives wisdom, produces faith, refutes error, searches the heart, equips for every good work, and is used as a weapon. The Word of God is even exalted even above the very name of God. Have you read Psalm 138:2?

Compare this with tradition ... Jesus told the religious leaders of his day that their tradition was nullifying the very word of God. Yet the religious leaders of today continue to do the same and deceive their followers. Because of this we must take the exhortation of Peter seriously ... that is we ought to obey God rather than men.

Check out: http://www.pro-gospel.org/main.html

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

[Administrator: the following is from a separate, but related, thread:]

Is Genesis Allegorical?


HELEN
Barbarian has stated that the creation narrative of Genesis (and who knows what else) is allegorical. It was pointed out to him that Jesus referred to the events in Genesis as literally real. So did all the other Bible authors who referred to the events. So I ask Barbarian to show us where Jesus indicated anything OTHER than that He considered Genesis to be a true historical record. He referred to Genesis events a number of times, as has been pointed out to you. You never responded to that.
Every evidence in the New Testament is that Jesus and all the writers -- including Peter -- considered Genesis to be literally true. Go back and check the verses and passages if you like. Then show us where you find any evidence at ALL that any of them or Jesus considered any of the events in Genesis, or the explanation of creation itself in the first chapters, to be anything other that actually, literally, true.

Barbarian, this DOES mean that you are considering the ENTIRE Bible as being less than trustworthy, as your allegations of allegory in the foundational book say that every single author in the Bible who referred to it in terms of being literally true was deceived, ignorant, or a liar. That means you don't take the Bible as written, period. It doesn't matter WHAT translation you are using where your attitude toward it is concerned.

Give us some backup for what you are claiming. Give it to us from the Bible.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian,
I know I presented this to you in a thread a while back, but I know garpier was not around then and I'm not sure if Helen saw it, so tell us in detail why this is not a straightforward statement by Jesus:
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Mark 10:6 (ESV)


THE BARBARIAN
Barbarian has stated that the creation narrative of Genesis (and who knows what else) is allegorical. It was pointed out to him that Jesus referred to the events in Genesis as literally real. You asserted that He said He did. But you have yet to provide a verse in which He says this. Are you ready to do that? Remember, you asserted that He did, and I asked for evidence. My position is that He didn't say either way.

Actually, I asked you for one statement in which He said so. You declined to give me one. Since you can't support the assertion, the conclusion is obvious. You asserted that He said He did. But you have yet to provide a verse in which He says this. Are you ready to do that? Remember, you asserted that He did, and I asked for evidence. My position is that He didn't say either way.


So did all the other Bible authors who referred to the events.

I've asked for even one Bible verse in which someone says all of Genesis is literal. Everyone ignored me. Do you have one, now?


He [Jesus] referred to Genesis events a number of times, as has been pointed out to you. You never responded to that.

Sure I did. I know He referred to Genesis. But what He didn't do is say that they were literal. That part, you added yourself.


Every evidence in the New Testament is that Jesus and all the writers -- including Peter – considered Genesis to be literally true. Go back and check the verses and passages if you like.

I did. No sign of that. What I need is not "there's evidence", but "here's the verse".


Then show us where you find any evidence at ALL that any of them or Jesus considered any of the events in Genesis, or the explanation of creation itself in the first chapters, to be anything other that actually, literally, true.

As I posted before, He makes no statement either way. Can you show me a verse where He says different?


This DOES mean that you are considering the ENTIRE Bible as being less than trustworthy,

Nope. The fact that Genesis is largely allegory, and that Jesus used parables, does not mean that the Bible is untrue in any respect.


as your allegations of allegory in the foundational book say that every single author in the Bible who referred to it in terms of being literally true was deceived, ignorant, or a liar.

Major misconception there. "Allegory" does not mean "false".


That means you don't take the Bible as written, period.

Nope. It just means that you and I don't agree on it.


It doesn't matter WHAT translation you are using where your attitude toward it is concerned.

True. I accept all of it, even the parts that are figurative.


Give us some backup for what you are claiming. Give it to us from the Bible.

Sure. There's no verse in the Bible in which Jesus says that Genesis is literal. Go look. It's not there.


I know I presented this to you in a thread a while back, but I know garpier was not around then and I'm not sure if Helen saw it, so tell us in detail why this is not a straightforward statement by Jesus:
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Mark 10:6 (ESV)

GEN 1:1-2 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
No male and female there. They came along later. But it is true that the first humans were indeed male and female.
Jesus was talking about a different "beginning" than the "beginning" in Genesis.


HELEN
That's what I thought, Barbarian. You can't point to one time in any of the Bible where any author or Christ Himself indicated anything other than acceptance of Genesis as literal historical truth. All the rest of your answer is blowing smoke to try to cover that fact.

Genesis is true. Let God be true and every man a liar, if need be.


PHILLIP
AMEN!!!!!!!

Doesn't Jesus indicate that many of those that think they have wisdom will be blinded? If Barbarian cannot see the incredible amount of planning and design behind our universe and the life on earth---he is blind. Evolution based strictly on physical laws is an impossibility. Just look at the second law of Thermodynamics.

And as Forrest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that."


THE BARBARIAN
That's what I thought, Barbarian. You can't point to one time in any of the Bible where any author or Christ Himself indicated anything other than acceptance of Genesis as literal historical truth.

As I pointed out, we can't show that He indicated anything at all about that. Since you've declined to show any verses where He did, we're back were we started.
If you ever do find any evidence, let me know.


All the rest of your answer is blowing smoke to try to cover that fact.

As I pointed out to you before, you can't point to one time in any of the Bible where any author or Christ Himself indicated anything other than acceptance of Genesis as figurative.


Genesis is true. Let God be true and every man a liar, if need be.

Of course it's true. You just aren't quite ready to accept it. Now that you've conceded that Jesus didn't say that Genesis is literal, why won't you just accept it as it is?


Doesn't Jesus indicate that many of those that think they have wisdom will be blinded?

Perhaps you aren't as wise as you suppose.


If Barbarian cannot see the incredible amount of planning and design behind our universe and the life on earth---he is blind.

It is blasphemous to accuse God of planning and design. Those are activities of a limited creature, not an omnipotent God. God has no need to plan. He already knows. I understand what you are trying to say. Indeed, theistic evolutionists are even more impressed with Him than you are. But let's not demean Him by asserting that he is limited in His understanding and power.


Evolution based strictly on physical laws is an impossibility. Just look at the second law of Thermodynamics.

Bolzman, who was one of the founders of thermodynamics, was a supporter of Darwin. Maybe he knew something about thermodynamics that you don't?
Perhaps you could show me why thermodynamics rules out evolution. Hint: if you can't do the math, you don't understand thermodynamics.
Most creationists gave up on the thermodynamics ploy a long time ago.


HELEN
Here, Barbarian. All these references are treating Genesis as literal information and actual history. No one needs to say "I am stating that Genesis is not allegorical but literally true" when they quote it as historical references as you will find below.


JESUS:
Matt. 19:4 -- Gen. 1:27 and 5:2
Matt. 19:5-6 -- Gen. 2:24
Matt. 23:35 -- Gen. 4:4
Matt 24:37-39 -- Gen. 6:1-22, 7:1-24, 8:1-22
Luke 11:51 -- Gen. 4:8-11
Luke 17:27 -- Flood reference

Other New Testament writers:
Luke 3:36-38 - Genesis 5:3-29
Acts 17:26 -- Genesis 9:19, 10:32
Romans 5:12 -- Genesis 2:16-17, 3:19
Romans 5:14-19 -- Genesis 1:17
1 Corinthians 15:38-39 -- Gen. 1:11, 21, 24
2 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Timothy 2:14 -- Genesis 3:1-6, 13
Hebrews 11:4 -- Genesis 4:3-5
Hebrews 11:5 -- Genesis 5:21-24
Hebrews 11:7 -- Genesis 7:1
Hebrews 12:24 -- Genesis 4:10
1 Peter 3:20 -- Genesis 6:14-16; 7:13
2 Peter 3:6 -- Genesis 7:17-84
1 John 3:12 -- Genesis 4:8,25
Jude 11 -- Genesis 4:8, 16, 25
Jude 14 -- Genesis 5:3-24
Revelation 2:7, 22:2, 14 -- Genesis 2:9, 3:22


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said, "No male and female there. They came along later. But it is true that the first humans were indeed male and female. Jesus was talking about a different "beginning" than the "beginning" in Genesis."

I cannot believe we are looking at the same sentence! Your answer is inadequate, as I presume all your answers to Helen's list will be.

It says "from (or at) the beginning, God made them male and female." Although you won't come out and say it, what you promote and believe is: "From the beginning God made the basic elements, and four billion years later male and female rose above the rest of creation through survival of the fittest." If that is how God did it, that is along the lines of how He would have stated it. You are accusing God of deception by what you would like Mark 10:6 to say. Your explanation doesn't even come close to the simple explanation of its meaning. I could ask a class of 5th graders what that sentence means and get a more consistently clearer answer than yours.

What is really amazing is how committal you are on scientific "beliefs," but how non-committal you are on factual scripture.


THE BARBARIAN
When I say that the Prodigal Son was warmly welcomed back by his father, I am simply recounting the parable; that I recounted it is not evidence that it suddenly became literal, rather than a parable.

I know how much you want it to be otherwise. But it can't be, Helen.

Barbarian said, "No male and female there. They came along later. But it is true that the first humans were indeed male and female. Jesus was talking about a different "beginning" than the "beginning" in Genesis."

---I cannot believe we are looking at the same sentence! Your answer is inadequate, as I presume all your answers to Helen's list will be.

I cited exactly what God said about "the beginning". If you won't accept what He said about it, it's unlikely that anything I say will sway you.


It says "from (or at) the beginning, God made them male and female." Although you won't come out and say it, what you promote and believe is: "From the beginning God made the basic elements, and four billion years later male and female rose above the rest of creation through survival of the fittest."

Precisely how long that took is of no importance to God. The fact remains what God said, and it's not what you are saying.
Jesus is talking about a different "beginning" here; otherwise He and the Father are at odds about creation. Can't be.


If that is how God did it, that is along the lines of how He would have stated it. You are accusing God of deception by what you would like Mark 10:6 to say. Your explanation doesn't even come close to the simple explanation of its meaning. I could ask a class of 5th graders what that sentence means and get a more consistently clearer answer than yours.

Rather, you should ask God. He tells you in Gen 1:1-2 what was there at the beginning. It is not what you want it to be.


What is really amazing is how committal you are on scientific "beliefs," but how non-committal you are on factual scripture.

Don't see how I can make it any plainer, John. Read the verses and accept them.


JOHN WELLS
Oh I read the verses and accept them. You read the verses and twist them.

Exodus 20:11 (ESV)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17 (ESV)
It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Tell me, do these verses agree with my understanding of Genesis 1 or yours? And if your response is the "a day is like a thousand years," then that only gives you six thousand years to work your evolution mumbo jumbo!
Educated Hebrew scholars agree that the word in Genesis 1 for day, "yom," used in the context that it appears, ALWAYS means "an evening and a morning," also used in Gen. 1. They validate and compliment one another. The six literal days of creation is a rock-solid, airtight case. Jesus' reference to it was in a matter-of-fact way in Mark 10:6. Haven't looked up all of Helen's list, but there are dozens of other references to the creation with a six-day understanding. Believe and say whatever you want about the six literal days of creation. Your counter-opinion and belief have no effect on the truth.

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN
You say that, but then you deny what God says in the first two verses of the Bible. There's no male and female there, contrary to your assertion. Jesus had a different "beginning" in mind.

Exodus 20:11 (ESV)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Why do you think repeating an allegory would make it literal?


Tell me, do these verses agree with my understanding of Genesis 1 or yours?

Mine. As you know, Genesis tells us it is not literal.


And if your response is the "a day is like a thousand years," then that only gives you six thousand years to work your evolution mumbo jumbo!

As you learned earlier, evolution has been directly observed. Even "creation scientists" now admit that new species, and genera, and families evolve. Even Phillip Johnson admits that it's possible that God created all things by natural processes.

But there's no need to imagine that six literal days or literal thousands of years were all the time He had. That is unscriptural, as early Christians like Augustine observed.

Why not just take Him at His word? He tells you what was present at the beginning. Male and Female weren't.
That comes later.


GARPIER
Barbarian wrote: As you know, Genesis tells us it is not literal.

Where does Genesis state that?


HELEN
In other words, Barbarian, you are accusing Jesus of lying. He said that IN THE BEGINNING, God made them male and female. You have simply denied that that is so.

Why do I have a sneaking suspician that Jesus knows what He is talking about better than you do?

In the meantime, I ran across something interesting today during my own Bible study. I'm in Ezekiel now, and the beginning of chapter 17 reads as follows:

The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell the house of Israel a parable"

In other words, God tells us quite plainly when something is an allegory or parable. This is also what the New Testament writers did. It is you, Barbarian, who are adding to the Bible when you claim Genesis is allegory.
It was referred to as historical fact by all who referred to it throughout the Bible.

I referenced that above.
The Bible plainly tells us when something is allegory or parable, as I have referenced for you here.
Poetic language in the Hebrew has an entirely different grammatical structure than prose. Genesis is prose.
You know far more about the myth of evolution, in other words, than you do about the truth of the Bible. And I don't blame you for defending what you know and believe in, but I can guarantee to you that what you know and what you believe in is NOT what the Bible says!


JOHN WELLS
Your smugness in "as you know" and "why don't you just understand it my way" is quite irritating Pat. You act so humbly hurt when you cause Helen to become infuriated with you. It's your game Pat, and I must admit you're pretty good at it. Your statements are without merit, period. This has degenerated from debate into denial.

How about "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them?" You say it's allegory. Prove it!


GARPIER
Matthew 11:23 "And thou, Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down into hell: for if the mighty works which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

Jesus was talking about a literal city of HIs day (Capernaum) and comparing it with a literal city from Genesis. Or did you expect Jesus to preface his remarks about Sodom with the word "literal."

Your refusal to see that the verses both Helen and I have referenced point to a literal view of Genesis is absolutely absurd.


THE BARBARIAN
In other words, Barbarian, you are accusing Jesus of lying.

Nope. I even pointed out that He was right. I'm not even saying you're lying.


He said that IN THE BEGINNING, God made them male and female. You have simply denied that that is so.

No, that's wrong, too. I agree with him. But since God tells us what was present in the beginning of creation, and since male and female were not, then Jesus is talking about a beginning that comes later. As Genesis tells us.


Why do I have a sneaking suspician that Jesus knows what He is talking about better than you do?

He knows better than you and I. But I'm just accepting what God says about this. There was no male and female at the beginning of creation, as God says in Gen.1:1-2.


In the meantime, I ran across something interesting today during my own Bible study. I'm in Ezekiel now, and the beginning of chapter 17 reads as follows:
The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell the house of Israel a parable"
In other words, God tells us quite plainly when something is an allegory or parable.

Nope. That's wrong, too. Sometimes He does. Other times, not. Would you like some examples?


This is also what the New Testament writers did. It is you, Barbarian, who are adding to the Bible when you claim Genesis is allegory.

Nope. You just aren't willing to let God do it His way.


It was referred to as historical fact by all who referred to it throughout the Bible.

I asked you to give even one example where they did, and you couldn't find one. Remember, repeating an allegory does not make it literal history.


The Bible plainly tells us when something is allegory or parable, as I have referenced for you here.

No, that's wrong. Many allegories in the Bible, and many of Jesus' parables were not so identified.


You know far more about the myth of evolution, in other words, than you do about the truth of the Bible.

Remember, they are both true. Even "creation scientists" are now admitting that evolution is a fact for new species, genera, and families.
But as you see, you have several misconceptions about Scripture that I do not.


And I don't blame you for defending what you know and believe in,

Nor do I blame you for that, Helen. As I said, people of great learning, wisdom, and love of God can be found on both sides of the question.


but I can guarantee to you that what you know and what you believe in is NOT what the Bible says!

I know you very much want that to be true. But it just can't be reconciled with scripture.


Your smugness in "as you know" and "why don't you just understand it my way" is quite irritating Pat.

It's not my way. It's His.


You haven't proven ANYTHING about evolution other than that evolutionists look at data/evidence with presuppositions and biases which lead them to questionable conclusions.


Well, as you might know, "proof" is not part of science. We just accumulate evidence, and go with that. The more, the better. As you've seen, from scores of different sources, evolution is well supported by the facts.

It's not just the fossil record, or that the phylogenies based on anatomy and fossils is supported by genetics and biochemestry; it's millions of little details that make no sense otherwise. It's those little bones in the jaw of a fetal opossum that are tiny replicas of the bones in the jaw of a mammal-like reptile. It's even those differences in DNA that Helen brought up; the differences show the evolutionary history of chordates and vertebrates.
There's no way to counter all this, except to stuff one's fingers in one's ears and shout "I can't hear you!".


Tell me about the "beginning in mind" that Jesus had since you seem to know His mind. "At the beginning of creation" can very logically be construed as inclusive of the "creation week," where man was created on day six.

Not if you take Genesis literally. God tells us the beginning is something quite different. But you're moving in the right direction.


How about "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them?" You say it's allegory. Prove it!

As you have seen, and early Christians pointed out, the logical inconsistancies in such an interpretation are too great.


Matthew 11:23 "And thou, Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down into hell: for if the mighty works which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."
Jesus was talking about a literal city of HIs day (Capernaum) and comparing it with a literal city from Genesis. Or did you expect Jesus to preface his remarks about Sodom with the word "literal."

Couple of errors there. First, Sodom could well have been destroyed. If so, God could well have used the nearby deposits of sulfur (brimstone) and the geologic instability of the area to accomplish the task. Here's a link which seems to support that idea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=002595646834577&rtmo=Vw44uuxx&atmo=tttttttd&pg=/et/00/3/26/wsod26.html

On the other hand, it could be an allegory, and useful as a reminder of the dangers of pride and willfullness against God.


Your refusal to see that the verses both Helen and I have referenced point to a literal view of Genesis is absolutely absurd.

I know how much you want it so. But you have to have something more than that.


HELEN
I don't think anything more has to be said. Pat -- Barbarian -- has more than amply demonstrated his heresies here, as well as his distortions of what both the Bible and those of us posting to respond to him have said.


JOHN WELLS
Barbarian said It's not my way. It's His.

Bunk!


There's no way to counter all this, except to stuff one's fingers in one's ears and shout "I can't hear you!".

Which is what you do regarding biblical truth, i.e. straightforward literal Genesis.


As you have seen, and early Christians pointed out, the logical inconsistancies in such an interpretation are too great.

Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” Romans 3:4 (ESV)

Early Christians are not my final authority, God’s Word is.

 

[Administrator2]

[Aministrator: from a different, but related, thread]

GARPIER
Romans 5:12 states "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.”

Since I believe that the Bible is the Word of God I believe this verse gives a clear testimony to a young earth creation. Clearly there was no death before the fall of Adam. (And in the contest of Romans 5 that is the one man being referred to.) This does not allow for long ages of evolutionary development and death. Of course if one were to say that Genesis is not to be taken literally, then I suppose that Romans can not be taken literally either.
If you were to take that approach, where do you draw the line? Can we take the gospel accounts literally and the issue of salvation through Christ alone? For that matter, for those who believe that God used evolution, there is no basis for believing any portion of Scripture, even those that deal with the nature of God.

Obviously, I believe that all of Scripture is to be taken literally. Of course, a literal interpretation of Scripture must take into accounts figures of speech and other literary devices where they are clearly warranted. For example Jesus said Herod was a fox, and called Himself the Door. We must allow for those sorts of devices.

What I am saying is we can't pick and choose which portions of Scripture to take literally and which portions to take allegorically unless there is a compelling reason to do so. There is no compelling reason to take Genesis or Romans any way except literally. Jesus understood that Genesis was to be taken literally and if we can't trust Him, who can we trust?

God, while giving the law to Moses explained that the Israelites were to rest one day out of the week because, He had created the earth in six days and rested the seventh. Moses didn't interpret those six days as ages or else we would still be looking forward to the first sabbath day.


HELEN
I agree with you 100%. Thank you for your post. You will find, however, that Barbarian, who is a Roman Catholic, and others like him, have been told that Genesis 1-11 is NOT an actual rendering of what happened, but is allegorical.

Which would make salvation from sin and death allegorical, too....

One thing I would mention is that using the word 'literal' can get a lot of flak as detractors will say 'well, what about this...' and give you some obscure or out of context bit. What I have learned to say is that the Bible is telling the truth in a straightforward way and that reinterpretation of passages is simply not necessary.

There are, by the way, definite grammatical distinctions between Hebrew poetry and Hebrew prose which totally eliminate Genesis from the category of 'poetry.' Nor does it carry any of the grammatical markings of allegory or parable. It reads as straight historical narrative. It should therefore be accepted or rejected on those terms – its own terms. Anything else is basically deceitful.

One other point is that if God did not mean physical death in referring to the punishment for Adam and Eve then Christ would not have had to die physically. Spiritual things can be taken care of spiritually. But what we did destroyed the physical creation. There had to be a physical element to the remedy.

And there was.


JOHN WELLS
Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal (Science) is God, follow him." But the people (evolutionist) said nothing. (1 Ki 18:21 NIV)


GARPIER
Thank you for your kind words Helen. I appreciate the stand you take and your strong faith in the Word of the Lord.

I like to use the term "literal" because it conveys the idea that God said exactly what he meant. As for those who would take passages out of context, the Bible is its own best interpreter. When a passage is seen in its context, there are no problems with taking it literally.

You make a good point about the Hebrew prose and poetry. One other point to consider is that the Israelites recognized the difference as seen in their division of the Old Testament: The Law or Torah, The prophets and the writings (which include all of the poetical books) .