Theisitic Evolution

[Aman777]

The bible presents two linages. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph.

Amen, and BOTH go through David. This shows God's perfection since Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David and Adam. Amen?

 

[-57]

Amen, and BOTH go through David. This shows God's perfection since Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David and Adam. Amen?

It also shows Jesus was the rightful King of the Jews.

It also shows that Adam was a historical individual.

 

[Aman777]

It also shows Jesus was the rightful King of the Jews.

It also shows that Adam was a historical individual.

Of course, since Adam was the first being made with a mind like God's Gen 3:22 with the ability to know both good and evil, black and white, to Judge, to make a FREE Choice to believe in God or the wisdom of this world. ONLY the descendants of Adam have inherited his superior intelligence since Adam was the common ancestor of ALL Humans. Noah was the first Human to step foot on planet Earth. Adam lived and died on the first Earth, which was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

 

[-57]

Of course, since Adam was the first being made with a mind like God's Gen 3:22 with the ability to know both good and evil, black and white, to Judge, to make a FREE Choice to believe in God or the wisdom of this world. ONLY the descendants of Adam have inherited his superior intelligence since Adam was the common ancestor of ALL Humans. Noah was the first Human to step foot on planet Earth. Adam lived and died on the first Earth, which was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

Preach that to yur church...see how long you last.

 

[stevevw]

Although Genesis 2 does not specify exact lengths of time, it does clearly specify a clear sequence of events. The author of Gen. 2 is telling a story, not presenting events in a random order; and the temporal order specified in 2 stands in stark contradiction to Gen. 1. Specifying lengths of time has noting to do with this, is not the issue.

Genesis 2 also states that man was formed before any plants and trees. So are you saying that man was made when the earth had nothing, no animals and no trees and plants. This is why is is not a chronological account because this doesn't make sense. No one believes that this is the case. Everyone believes that there is only one women named Eve. Also in looking into the Hebrew I found they do have a past tense (pluperfect). Some of the best scholars on the Hebrew language have acknowledged this. They have even given examples and these fit exactly into how the verse 2: can also be referring to past events. So despite your insistence of there being none there are other people who disagree. This is the problem in that you can make claims and say that you have experts who know better. But then we can find experts who state the opposite. So who is telling the truth and who really knows.

Hebrew Perfect and Imperfect Verbs
http://www.raystedman.org/leadership/smith/ch11.html
The following link is has references to one of the best experts on the Hebrew Language. S. R. Driver wrote, A Treatise on the Hebrew Tenses.
He was Regius Professor of Hebrew as well as being a member of the Old Testament Revision Committee of the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version']Revised Version.[/URL]
So I think he should know the Hebrew language.
THE PLUPERFECT IN HEBREW
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap3.html

The point is that if made is pluperfect (i.e., "had made") in verse 16, then it must be referring back to an earlier "making," but how much earlier? Some have proposed the events of verse I or verse 3, but it could just as well be simply referring back to verse 14.

The word made occurs two other times in Genesis 1. Each one could possibly be translated as a pluperfect, so if verse 16 is pluperfect, we would expect the others to be pluperfect also. But how does this affect our understanding of Genesis 1?
http://www.ldolphin.org/waw.html

 

[Hoghead1]

Doesn't work, Bob. Gen. 2 gives a very clear sequence in which the events occur: There is first Adam existing, then the animals are created, and later Eve comes along.

 

[Hoghead1]

Stevewv, there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. That is why Gen. 2 is not referring back to anything in Gen. 1.

 

[stevevw]

Stevewv, there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. That is why Gen. 2 is not referring back to anything in Gen. 1.

Then how do you explain the links which showed experts who were involved in translating the old testament and have won awards on the Hebrew language showing that there is a pluperfect (past tense) is in the Hebrew language. This seems to be the issue here that people are making claims and counter claims. We have two people here on this forum who are disagreeing with you and we have many experts who are disagreeing with you.

Samuel Rolles Driver was educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, where he had a distinguished career, taking a first class in Literae Humaniores in 1869. He was awarded the Pusey and Ellerton scholarship in 1866, the Kennicott scholarship in 1870 (both Hebrew), and the Houghton Syriac prize in 1872. From 1870 he was a fellow, and from 1875 also a tutor, of New College, and in 1883 succeeded Pusey as Regius Professor of Hebrew and canon of Christ Church, Oxford. He was a member of the Old Testament Revision Committee of the Revised Version (1876-1884) and examining chaplain to the Bishop of Southwell (1884-1904); received the honorary degrees of doctor of literature of the University of Dublin (1892), doctor of divinity of the University of Glasgow (1901),[2] doctor of literature of the University of Cambridge (1905); and was elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1902. In June 1901, he received an honorary doctorate of Divinity from the University of Glasgow.

He also wrote many books one of which was A Treatise on the Hebrew Tenses. For which I am quoting from.
It has received may reviews including this one.
To my knowledge, there is no work in the English language dealing specifically with the Hebrew verb comparable to that published in 1892 by S. R. Driver entitled, A Treatise on the Hebrew Tenses.
S. R. Driver
By analogy, we should assume, therefore, that the pluperfect is used to describe something which occurred prior to the events which thereafter form the main thread of the story.

Here are a peer reviewed paper stating that the use of the pluperfect is indeed used in Genesis 2:19.
"The *wayyiqtol* as 'pluperfect': When and why"
This article examines the possibility that the Hebrew wayyiqtol verb form itself, without a previous perfect, may denote what in Western languages would be expressed by a pluperfect tense, and attempts to articulate how we might discern it in a given passage, and the communicative effect of such a usage. The article concludes that there is an unmarked pluperfect usage of the wayyiqtol verb form; and that it may be detected when one of three conditions is met. Application of these results demonstrates that this usage is not present in 1 Samuel 14:24, while it is present in Genesis 2:19.
https://www.academia.edu/5312638/_The_wayyiqtol_as_pluperfect_When_and_why_

Section 8 from this paper deals with the pluperfect.
8. Pluperfect
We have so far examined how to infer discourse relations in simple past tensed texts. Both the contrast and parallels must be such that the event in the pluperfect happens before that in the simple past.
http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/prosjekter/sprik/pdf/lash.pdf

So I have a couple of papers and writings from one of the best Hebrew language experts in the world. So are you saying they are all wrong.

 

[Aman777]

Preach that to yur church...see how long you last.

It seems obvious that you don't understand Churches. It would be very disruptive for me to go to any Church and tell them that I cannot agree with their doctrine. Baptist Churches preach Baptist beliefs and Methodists preach Methodist's beliefs and those who disrupt their views, are soon excluded.

That's WHY I'm here on this message board trying to get others to read the Creation story in Genesis for what it actually says, instead of what some denomination says it says. That's all. God Bless you

 

[-57]

It seems obvious that you don't understand Churches. It would be very disruptive for me to go to any Church and tell them that I cannot agree with their doctrine. Baptist Churches preach Baptist beliefs and Methodists preach Methodist's beliefs and those who disrupt their views, are soon excluded.

That's WHY I'm here on this message board trying to get others to read the Creation story in Genesis for what it actually says, instead of what some denomination says it says. That's all. God Bless you

Problem being....it's not what it says.

 

[Aman777]

Problem being....it's not what it says.

Then show me where I'm wrong either scripturally, scientifically or historically. You cannot since my disagreement is with the False ToE. That's because Adam was NOT made on Planet Earth, but on the first Earth which was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 This exposes the False ToE for it's incomplete assumptions which Darwinists teach our babies as Scientific Fact. Amen?

 

[-57]

Then show me where I'm wrong either scripturally, scientifically or historically. You cannot since my disagreement is with the False ToE. That's because Adam was NOT made on Planet Earth, but on the first Earth which was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 This exposes the False ToE for it's incomplete assumptions which Darwinists teach our babies as Scientific Fact. Amen?

The bible doesn't say the earth was totally destroyed....what the bible does say is that the earth was covered with water..then the water receeded.

Now, were the surface features, people and animals destroyed? Yes. Was the planet totally destroyed, nope. Just flooded.

 

[Aman777]

The bible doesn't say the earth was totally destroyed....what the bible does say is that the earth was covered with water..then the water receeded.

Now, were the surface features, people and animals destroyed? Yes. Was the planet totally destroyed, nope. Just flooded.

God told Noah:

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Then AFTER the flood, God told Noah:

Gen 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Isaiah tells us:

Isa 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

Then Peter ties it all together:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world (Kosmos) that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-Utterly destroyed, totally)

Humans were made on another world which was totally destroyed in the flood. Amen?

 

[-57]

God told Noah:

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Then AFTER the flood, God told Noah:

Gen 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Isaiah tells us:

Isa 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.

Then Peter ties it all together:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world (Kosmos) that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-Utterly destroyed, totally)

Humans were made on another world which was totally destroyed in the flood. Amen?

It's quite obvious you don't quite understand what is ment by destroy the earth.
We can know it doesn't mean cease from existing as a planet....because we understand the nature of the flood....the waters rose..covered the mountains...then receded from the mountains. The surface was destroyed. Pretty much that's it.

 

[Aman777]

It's quite obvious you don't quite understand what is ment by destroy the earth.
We can know it doesn't mean cease from existing as a planet....because we understand the nature of the flood....the waters rose..covered the mountains...then receded from the mountains. The surface was destroyed. Pretty much that's it.

It was much more than Adam's Earth since his firmament, which God called Heaven, the first Heaven, was totally destroyed in the Flood. The FIRST Universe is no more. We live today in the 2nd Universe, which will be burned. ll Peter 3:10 It is empirical (testable) evidence which will totally destroy the False ToE in the last days. Amen?

 

[BobRyan]

It was much more than Adam's Earth since his firmament, which God called Heaven,

God did not say "let us create Adam's firmament" -- right?

No Bible text at all for "first universe" vs second universe -- in the actual Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Although Genesis 2 does not specify exact lengths of time, it does clearly specify a clear sequence of events. The author of Gen. 2 is telling a story, not presenting events in a random order; .

Gen 2 "add details" not found at all in Gen 1

1. The names of the man and the woman.
2. The fact that it did not rain before the fall of man (or before the flood most likely)
3. The institution of Marriage
4. the 7th day blessed and santified.
5. The rule about the tree of knowledge
6. The significance of the tree of life.
7. The fact that Adam named animals of the field (farm) prior to Eve being created.
8. The creation of Eden in one specific part of the Earth.

It gives NO timeline at all for these events. Much less a "competing timeline" to Gen 1:2-2:3.

This is irrefutable.

Doesn't work, Bob. Gen. 2 gives a very clear sequence in which the events occur: There is first Adam existing, then the animals are created, and later Eve comes along.

Gen 2 does not say that "animals were created after Adam". As we all know
In fact Gen 1 states clearly that land animals and Adam and Eve were created on the same day - first animals then man.

 

[BobRyan]

from: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=643
==========================
Does Genesis two present a different creation order than Genesis one? Is there a reasonable explanation for the differences between the two chapters? Or is this to be recognized as a genuine contradiction?

Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.
===================================


All translations agree – on Gen 2:8 – Heb:"yatsar" – “had formed”
Gen 2:8 – KJV/NKJV/NIV/NASB/YLT/21 Century KJV/ ….
He had formed h3335 יָצַר yatsar
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


So then --
Gen 2:19-20 NIV – Heb: "yatsar" – “had formed”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.


Why does hh1 have to fall on his sword trying to re-imagine Gen 2 as a contradiction to Gen 1 - after he has already stated that he has no faith in the text and does not think Moses was ever intending to teach Darwinism???

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, I think you are misreading key material here. First, any Hebrew expert, including Driver, will tell you there are no tenses in Hebrew. Driver did say that the verb form "waw" could, on certain occasions be translated in the pluperfect. That was largely to make sense out of the text. He did not think Gen. 2:19 should be translated in the pluperfect, however.

 

[BobRyan]

All translations agree – on Gen 2:8 – Heb:"yatsar" – “had formed”
Gen 2:8 – KJV/NKJV/NIV/NASB/YLT/21 Century KJV/ ….
He had formed h3335 יָצַר yatsar
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


So then --
Gen 2:19-20 NIV – Heb: "yatsar" – “had formed”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Bob, I think you are misreading key material here. First, any Hebrew expert, including Driver, will tell you there are no tenses in Hebrew. Driver did say that the verb form "waw" could, on certain occasions be translated in the pluperfect. That was largely to make sense out of the text. He did not think Gen. 2:19 should be translated in the pluperfect, however.

And Gen 2:8???

The point is everyone agrees in Gen 2:8 -- Yatsar is in fact "had formed". NIV appears to be right in this case.

=====================

Gen 2:19 In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

"Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” "

=========================

But you did not address this question -

Why does hh1 have to fall on his sword trying to re-imagine Gen 2 as a contradiction to Gen 1 - after he has already stated that he has no faith in the text and does not think Moses was ever intending to teach Darwinism???