Problems with the evolutionary debate.

[LewisWildermuth]

Are you going to reply to shernren’s post #11, that gives verses or are you going to ignore his points to play some kind of game with jereth?

 

[bullietdodger]

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
(Genesis 1:20 ESV)

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
(Genesis 1:24 ESV)

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
(Genesis 2:7 ESV)

(emphases added)

Each of the three "living creature"s in the above verses are the same Hebrew words, chay nephesh. As such, we see that the breath of God in Gen2 only elevated man to the status of something living, on par with the sea creatures and the land creatures.

Only God's making man in His image in Gen1 is what makes man different - and God's image has to be a spiritual endowing of man, not a physical endowing (which is described in Gen2). As such, man is biologically an animal, and animals are physically on the same level as man.

In Genesis 1:20 the word for creature is sherets. You are correct with nephesh being the word for living. In Genesis 1:24 is when chay is used for living and nephesh is used for creature. So you are correct with the words used here. You are correct in Genesis 2:7 with words chay nephesh being used.

Have you heard of the term semantic range? Sematic range is the range of words that can be used to describe a translated word. This means that the translators have to pick the best English word to fit the context of the passage, in this case, as you know, the original language is Hebrew. You can get a good idea for this by looking at different translations. Speaking of which. Having looked at the ESV, CEV, KJN, NIV, NET versions we see that all use living creatures (or a variation eg, life=living) for Genesis 1:20 and 24. In Genesis 2:7 we see that the KJV and NIV differ from the above mentioned. The KJV uses 'living soul' while NIV uses 'living being.' So I would disagree that each passage is saying that animals have a soul.

I find it interesting to note that you are using Genesis since TE's calm that Genesis is not literal. Again, it can be nothing but literal and evolution could not have happened over millions of years. Look at these words:

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. - Gen 1:5

Emphasize added.

The words are used to close out days two through six. This means that this is a 24 hour period. It's not possible for the "process" of evolution to occur within two (day four and five) 24 hour periods. Not to mention the fact that Gen 2:7 mentions that man was formed out of dust and the woman taken from a rib bone of man. Again, evolutionists miss the big picture.

Since I have been doing research I have yet to come across a passage that without a doubt says that animals have souls. I challange any of you who says that the Bible mentions animals to have souls to direct me to a direct scriptural verse or passage which does so.

 

[bullietdodger]

Are you going to reply to shernren’s post #11, that gives verses or are you going to ignore his points to play some kind of game with jereth?

Unfortunately comments like these do not add to the discussion. If you are tempted to make comments, don't. Comments are not welcomed, only those who wish to discuss the topic.

 

[bullietdodger]

Contradicts scripture which says that God made Leviathan "to sport with". Jesus did die for animals and plants and bacteria and the whole created order. Since the fall affected all of creation, Christ died to save all of creation from the effects of the fall.

Only humanity needs to be saved from its own sinfulness, but all of creation needs to be saved from the consequences of human sin. That is why Paul speaks of the whole creation yearning to see the birth of the sons of God.

Please give scriptural support for this.

 

[random_guy]

Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology. This discussion does not take into consideration of the big picture.

Can't you say this about every single scientific discipline? The problem with astronomy is that it's focused on physics. The problem with differential equations is it's focused on math. The problem with radioactive dating is it's focused on chemistry. And so on. Evolution is not the only scientific theory that contradicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Nearly every single scientific discipline has a theory that's at odds with a YECist interpretation. So don't you mean that your problem with science is that it's too sciency?

 

[gluadys]

Please give scriptural support for this.

Psalm 104:26 (variant translation)

with the ships going to and fro and Leviathan whom you made to amuse you. (Jerusalem Bible)

Romans 8:19-22

 

[bullietdodger]

Can't you say this about every single scientific discipline? The problem with astronomy is that it's focused on physics. The problem with differential equations is it's focused on math. The problem with radioactive dating is it's focused on chemistry. And so on. Evolution is not the only scientific theory that contradicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Nearly every single scientific discipline has a theory that's at odds with a YECist interpretation. So don't you mean that your problem with science is that it's too sciency?

On the contrary I believe that science eventually will comfirm what the scriptures say.

 

[bullietdodger]

Psalm 104:26 (variant translation)

with the ships going to and fro and Leviathan whom you made to amuse you. (Jerusalem Bible)

Romans 8:19-22

I don't see how Psalm 104:26 fits. As for Rom 8:19-22, okay Christ does save creation, but this is not a spiritual saving. Again, only mankind is spiritual saved. The Roms passage does not support the view of animals having souls.

Don't forget that there is a new Heaven and earth to come. What does this do to the creation which is saved from decay?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Remember Ad-Libs? This sentence in the OP reminds me of one too much to let it go...

So lets all have fun! Take this sentence and fill in the blanks!!!

Problem one with the _(enter any proffesion/ field of study / etc here)_ is it is focused on_(enter what your first choice is suppose to be concerned about)_.

Like this example...

“Problem one with the Auto Mechanic is it is focused on My Car.”

Then write a nonsensical rant about why you are miffed that your choice of subject is doing what they are suppose to be doing and not what you want them to do.

Like this example...

“If my Auto Mechanic were not so focused on fixing My Car, then he might be able to tell me if I had cancer or not. I mean, shesh, look at that sign our front saying that he will fix your cars problems! What if one of my cars problems is that the driver has cancer!?! You think that he would at least look to see if that may be a problem. But No!!! The mechanic has me sit here in this little room with bad coffee while he looks at just my car! If this auto mechanic would stop and look at the big picture once in a while he might find that cars have drivers too!!!”

Let’s all have some fun!

 

[bullietdodger]

Remember Ad-Libs? This sentence in the OP reminds me of one too much to let it go...

So lets all have fun! Take this sentence and fill in the blanks!!!

Problem one with the _(enter any proffesion/ field of study / etc here)_ is it is focused on_(enter what your first choice is suppose to be concerned about)_.

Like this example...

“Problem one with the Auto Mechanic is it is focused on My Car.”

Then write a nonsensical rant about why you are miffed that your choice of subject is doing what they are suppose to be doing and not what you want them to do.

Like this example...

“If my Auto Mechanic were not so focused on fixing My Car, then he might be able to tell me if I had cancer or not. I mean, shesh, look at that sign our front saying that he will fix your cars problems! What if one of my cars problems is that the driver has cancer!?! You think that he would at least look to see if that may be a problem. But No!!! The mechanic has me sit here in this little room with bad coffee while he looks at just my car! If this auto mechanic would stop and look at the big picture once in a while he might find that cars have drivers too!!!”

Let’s all have some fun!

How's that for fun. Now either contribute to the discussion or stop posting. You are wasting reading room for those who want to seriously discuss.

 

[random_guy]

On the contrary I believe that science eventually will comfirm what the scriptures say.

You may believe that, but currently as is, the literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts nearly every discipline in science in some way. Of course, you're welcome to continue hoping that someday science may validate your interpretation, but remember once something is falsified in science, it's very unlikely ever be considered correct. It's no better than believing in Flat Earthism and hoping that someday science will come around and say, "Hey we were wrong about the Earth being round, it's really flat!"

 

[jereth]

I have been researching the topic, but if you are unwilling to point me to passages which convince you of your theology, then our discussion is a waste of time.

That's fine.

 

[Assyrian]

How's that for fun. Now either contribute to the discussion or stop posting. You are wasting reading room for those who want to seriously discuss.

I think the wasted pixels began in the OP when you claimed "Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology." and went on to tell a funny elephant story. But never mind, as long as you acknowledge it was a bit silly, that's fine.

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
(Genesis 1:20 ESV)

In Genesis 1:20 the word for creature is sherets. You are correct with nephesh being the word for living. In Genesis 1:24 is when chay is used for living and nephesh is used for creature. So you are correct with the words used here. You are correct in Genesis 2:7 with words chay nephesh being used.

I suspect your Strongs linked AV text has got snarled up in the cumbersome AV translation of this verse. If we look at the more literal ESV it translates the two Hebrew words sharats 8317 and sherets 8318, as 'swarm with swarms' and chay nephesh is 'living creatures'.

Have you heard of the term semantic range? Sematic range is the range of words that can be used to describe a translated word. This means that the translators have to pick the best English word to fit the context of the passage, in this case, as you know, the original language is Hebrew. You can get a good idea for this by looking at different translations. Speaking of which. Having looked at the ESV, CEV, KJN, NIV, NET versions we see that all use living creatures (or a variation eg, life=living) for Genesis 1:20 and 24. In Genesis 2:7 we see that the KJV and NIV differ from the above mentioned. The KJV uses 'living soul' while NIV uses 'living being.' So I would disagree that each passage is saying that animals have a soul.

Your problem is that nephesh and ruach have wide semantic ranges and that they are both applied to animals and humans.

Which leaves you without any scriptural basis for the claim "that humans have souls, animals do not." We have shown you the problem with you claim, now you have to back your claim up, or withdraw it.

 

[jereth]

Have you heard of the term semantic range? Sematic range is the range of words that can be used to describe a translated word. This means that the translators have to pick the best English word to fit the context of the passage, in this case, as you know, the original language is Hebrew.

You're just undermining your own argument. If nephesh and ruach are broad terms with a range of meaning, then that pretty much destroys the idea of a distinct theological category of "immortal, immaterial soul". Which verse of Scripture irrefutably says that man has a "soul" that is immortal, immaterial and distinct from the animals?

I'm willing to bet that every occurence of the word nepesh could be better translated "being", "self" etc.

 

[Melethiel]

How's that for fun. Now either contribute to the discussion or stop posting. You are wasting reading room for those who want to seriously discuss.

One of the rules for internet forums such as this is that topics are forbidden to stay on topic.

 

[kamikat]

MOD HAT ON
Please take the time the review the rules
http://www.christianforums.com/rules
MOD HAT OFF

thank you, kamikat