Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

[Baptist Believer]

I do not accept the Evolutionist time scale, do you?

Not uncritically, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the earth is quite old. Not only do we have geological and astronomical evidence, genetic evidence also points that direction. God made us with the capacity to reason, and He is certainly not going to deceive us. Scripture has nothing to say about the age of the created world (although many people will disagree with that assessment), but it certainly points to the One Who did created it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not uncritically, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the earth is quite old. Not only do we have geological and astronomical evidence, genetic evidence also points that direction. God made us with the capacity to reason, and He is certainly not going to deceive us. Scripture has nothing to say about the age of the created world (although many people will disagree with that assessment), but it certainly points to the One Who did created it.

Old earth is just an attempt to try to fit "accepted evolutionary facts" into the biblical record!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Old earth is just an attempt to try to fit "accepted evolutionary facts" into the biblical record!

Actually, acknowledging an ancient earth is a rational and faithful response to all the available facts which does not contract the biblical record. It certainly contradicts some interpretations of scripture, but interpretations are not the same thing as scripture itself.

When we have evidence that contradicts our interpretations, we need to re-examine scripture carefully, as well as take a second or third long and hard look at the evidence, to determine what our new interpretation/understanding should be.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, acknowledging an ancient earth is a rational and faithful response to all the available facts which does not contract the biblical record. It certainly contradicts some interpretations of scripture, but interpretations are not the same thing as scripture itself.

When we have evidence that contradicts our interpretations, we need to re-examine scripture carefully, as well as take a second or third long and hard look at the evidence, to determine what our new interpretation/understanding should be.

Except that the evidence is the same for both young and old earthers, and Old earthers still need to accept that Genesis would be a literal historical account of what happened...

 

[atpollard]

Except that the evidence is the same for both young and old earthers, and Old earthers still need to accept that Genesis would be a literal historical account of what happened...

Wasn't that argument once used to defend a 'flat Earth'?

 

[Yeshua1]

Wasn't that argument once used to defend a 'flat Earth'?

Nope, as Genesis account is rightly understanding as being historical factual event, not a metaphor/myth!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Except that the evidence is the same for both young and old earthers...

But not the interpretation of the evidence.

...and Old earthers still need to accept that Genesis would be a literal historical account of what happened...

Where does scripture explicitly say that Genesis 1-2 is a literal historical account? It doesn't. People have demanded that it be interpreted that way because of references to Adam in other parts of the scripture, assuming that a specific reference MUST be literal and historical. As I understand scripture, Adam and Eve are literary figures of human origins. (Please note that when I say "literary," I do not mean false, "made up," or anything to do with deception.) The text in Genesis can easily support that understanding without distorting the text. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 has at least one glaring contradiction. Moreover, the way the text reads points to a non-literal interpretation because of the use of the Divine Name, the poetic repetition, and the contradiction in creation order between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Yeshua1]

But not the interpretation of the evidence.


Where does scripture explicitly say that Genesis 1-2 is a literal historical account? It doesn't. People have demanded that it be interpreted that way because of references to Adam in other parts of the scripture, assuming that a specific reference MUST be literal and historical. As I understand scripture, Adam and Eve are literary figures of human origins. (Please note that when I say "literary," I do not mean false, "made up," or anything to do with deception.) The text in Genesis can easily support that understanding without distorting the text. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 has at least one glaring contradiction. Moreover, the way the text reads points to a non-literal interpretation because of the use of the Divine Name, the poetic repetition, and the contradiction in creation order between Genesis 1 and 2.

Was there a real Adam and Eve then? Was there a real physical fall, with a real serpant and fruit in garden?

 

[Illuminator]

First of all I couldn't get to the comments to many ads and what does this do to the young earth theory, that scientific creationist, like myself believe?... Isn't 100,000 to 200,000 years still to long?... I believe the discovery just not the timing... Brother Glen

Here is the article for you and that question!
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/all-species-the-same-age-with-no-in-between-species/

 

[Illuminator]

Not uncritically, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the earth is quite old. Not only do we have geological and astronomical evidence, genetic evidence also points that direction. God made us with the capacity to reason, and He is certainly not going to deceive us. Scripture has nothing to say about the age of the created world (although many people will disagree with that assessment), but it certainly points to the One Who did created it.

James Ussher would disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

But not the interpretation of the evidence.


Where does scripture explicitly say that Genesis 1-2 is a literal historical account? It doesn't. People have demanded that it be interpreted that way because of references to Adam in other parts of the scripture, assuming that a specific reference MUST be literal and historical. As I understand scripture, Adam and Eve are literary figures of human origins. (Please note that when I say "literary," I do not mean false, "made up," or anything to do with deception.) The text in Genesis can easily support that understanding without distorting the text. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 has at least one glaring contradiction. Moreover, the way the text reads points to a non-literal interpretation because of the use of the Divine Name, the poetic repetition, and the contradiction in creation order between Genesis 1 and 2.

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/

 

[Baptist Believer]

James Ussher would disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Obviously.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

I have heard all of these arguments. In fact, I held this view until I worked through these passages in my seminary Hebrew class for a term paper. There are a ton of modern assumptions that this writer is laying on the text, including a primary modern Western concern of defending inerrancy, and he ignores everything that he does not have to deal with. He is also using an unnatural translation of "yatsar," rendering it in the pluperfect instead of the perfect tense, in order to support his view. It is not accident that almost all Bible translations, except the NIV, properly translate it in the perfect. For instance, he claims that the Genesis 2 section is a detailed view of the sixth day, when the text literally claims that it was "in the day (yom) the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4). So the Genesis 2 account either indicates that everything was created in one day, or that the Hebrew word yom ("day") is a word that is used to denote various lengths of time (which it is), so there is no basis for claiming that the Genesis 1 account consists of six 24-hour days like so many claim, based on the use of the word "yom."

Beyond all of that, have you ever really thought about that whole idea of God "resting" on the seventh day? Why would God need to rest or want to rest? And why does the writer of Hebrews draw so much on this idea in Hebrews 3-4? What does it mean to enter God's rest? And why has God's rest remain for some to enter it (Hebrews 4:6)?

The answer is surprisingly simple and beautiful. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is describing how God (Elohim - a generic name for God or gods) created the world in order to inhabit it, in contrast to the pagan gods who allegedly "rested" in their temples made with human hands. In terms of popular thought that was in the air during this period in human history, the Jewish cosmology portrayed a God who created all things, including human beings, to live in His temple and enjoy worship. Everything was created for worship, yet this Creator God was not dependent upon human beings because He was the One Who had established everything. It was a stunning story to the ears of the ancients. The kicker begins in Genesis 2:4, when this mysterious Elohim is identified as the God Who revealed His name to Moses, Yahweh Elohim. This establishes that the God of Moses - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - is the Creator God and everything that exists was created to honor Him.

There's not enough time nor room here to write up everything I could say about this issue, but I hope this is enough to point out why some people can fully believe the Bible yet not subscribe to a "literal" six, 24-hour day, creation narrative.

Genesis 1-2 is beautifully written and is written in the style of the time it was created. It is not trying to anticipate modern science, but to speak into the Bronze Age culture of the Middle East on its own terms. We do great violence to the text when we try to correlate modern science to an ancient type of writing that was never intended to be literal in the way we understand it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Was there a real Adam and Eve then? Was there a real physical fall, with a real serpant and fruit in garden?

First, I need to apologize. I got tied up with things at work and in my family life and forgot about this thread. I'm sorry to have made you wait. At the same time, I don't think you were anxiously waiting day and night for my answer , but it is just rude to drop conversations. It was not my intention.

You asked about a "real" Adam, Eve, "physical fall", serpent, fruit, and presumably the Garden of Eden in which everything took place. Because of the way you have asked the question, a simple yes or no would give a dishonest answer. Do I believe those things are real? Absolutely. But that would give you the wrong impression and I would be dishonest. My view is much more complex than that.

Adam and Eve
Real? Yes.
Literal? No.*
Archetypal? Yes.
Genealogical? Yes, but not in a literal sense.
Literary? Yes.

* The human genome reveals that humankind is descended from a population of about 10,000 individuals, rather than a pair.

"Physical Fall" (I'm not sure what you mean by "physical," but I am interpreting it as the doctrine of the Fall where persons created in the image of God are not necessarily sustained by God with eternal life.)
Real? Yes.
Literal? Yes, but not in terms of a literal Genesis 3.
Genealogical? Yes.
Literary? Yes.

Serpent
Real? Yes.
Literal? Yes, but not in terms of a literal Genesis 3.

Fruit and the Garden of Eden
Real? Yes.
Literal? Yes, but not in terms of a literal Genesis 3.
Archetypal? Yes.
Literary? Yes.


An outstanding book on this issue is "Adam and the Genome" which respectfully explains both science and scripture. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it is a good place to get a primer on the issues. I read through it with a scientist friend of mine. He helped me with the science side of things and I helped him with the theology side. Even if you ultimately disagree with the conclusions that honor both scripture and science, you need to know the evidence.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, I need to apologize. I got tied up with things at work and in my family life and forgot about this thread. I'm sorry to have made you wait. At the same time, I don't think you were anxiously waiting day and night for my answer , but it is just rude to drop conversations. It was not my intention.

You asked about a "real" Adam, Eve, "physical fall", serpent, fruit, and presumably the Garden of Eden in which everything took place. Because of the way you have asked the question, a simple yes or no would give a dishonest answer. Do I believe those things are real? Absolutely. But that would give you the wrong impression and I would be dishonest. My view is much more complex than that.

Adam and Eve
Real? Yes.
Literal? No.*
Archetypal? Yes.
Genealogical? Yes, but not in a literal sense.
Literary? Yes.

* The human genome reveals that humankind is descended from a population of about 10,000 individuals, rather than a pair.

"Physical Fall" (I'm not sure what you mean by "physical," but I am interpreting it as the doctrine of the Fall where persons created in the image of God are not necessarily sustained by God with eternal life.)
Real? Yes.
Literal? Yes, but not in terms of a literal Genesis 3.
Genealogical? Yes.
Literary? Yes.

Serpent
Real? Yes.
Literal? Yes, but not in terms of a literal Genesis 3.

Fruit and the Garden of Eden
Real? Yes.
Literal? Yes, but not in terms of a literal Genesis 3.
Archetypal? Yes.
Literary? Yes.


An outstanding book on this issue is "Adam and the Genome" which respectfully explains both science and scripture. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it is a good place to get a primer on the issues. I read through it with a scientist friend of mine. He helped me with the science side of things and I helped him with the theology side. Even if you ultimately disagree with the conclusions that honor both scripture and science, you need to know the evidence.

You would not see the Fall as being really an historiacl account than?
Were Adam and Eve created by God in a special creation?

 

[Baptist Believer]

You would not see the Fall as being really an historiacl account than?

The fall is real. The term "historical" does not really apply to my understanding of the text of Genesis 3.

Were Adam and Eve created by God in a special creation?

All things were created by God, and God has initiated, guided and controlled the formation of life on the earth. As for a specific, literal, historical male and female named Adam and Eve as the two (and only two) progenitors of humankind -- No. I don't think the text was intended to give us that conclusion.

 

[Yeshua1]

The fall is real. The term "historical" does not really apply to my understanding of the text of Genesis 3.


All things were created by God, and God has initiated, guided and controlled the formation of life on the earth. As for a specific, literal, historical male and female named Adam and Eve as the two (and only two) progenitors of humankind -- No. I don't think the text was intended to give us that conclusion.

You saw them as a by product of evolution then?
And how can it be lietral, and yet not be historical, did all those things happen for real or not?

 

[Baptist Believer]

You saw them as a by product of evolution then?

Absolutely not.

Humankind is the crown of God’s creation through the guided process of evolutionary forces. God was active in the process.

And how can it be lietral, and yet not be historical...

Just like the parables of Jesus are real but not historical. They explain reality, but are not meant to be interpreted in a modern Western literal sense.

...did all those things happen for real or not?

They are real, but not historical.

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely not.

Humankind is the crown of God’s creation through the guided process of evolutionary forces. God was active in the process.


Just like the parables of Jesus are real but not historical. They explain reality, but are not meant to be interpreted in a modern Western literal sense.


They are real, but not historical.

There metaphor/Myth?
And Adam was said to be a direct creation by God, and that God breathed life into Him, do you see Adam as having primate Ape parents then?

 

[Baptist Believer]

There metaphor/Myth?

Those words are so loaded with negative connotations, I hesitate to use them, but I think I can say that they creation/fall narratives in Genesis 1-3 are a God-inspired myth, in the finest technical sense (not the common meaning). They are real, but not historical.

And Adam was said to be a direct creation by God...

Adam is an archetype of humankind. We are all a direct creation of God.

...and that God breathed life into Him...

God has given us life and His consciousness (His image)

...do you see Adam as having primate Ape parents then?

The human genome points to modern humankind descending from a population of about 10,000 hominids. Something happened where humankind became distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. However, it seemed to happen to a population, not just two. That would support the puzzle of Cain being worried about other people killing him and where he got his wife (see Genesis 4:15-17).