Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Tinker Grey]

but I think they're saying it's not higher amongst True Christians[sup]tm[/sup]

Apparently the number of people going to hell is much larger than 4 billion (of those alive).

 

[Assyrian]

Easy, it discounts evolution of plants. Biblically speaking.

The bible wasn't written by King James or his translation committee, so an argument based solely on his particular bible's rendering of the Hebrew is hardly 'biblically speaking'. Besides even your interpretation of the AV does not say what form the pre-existence of the plants took. You and I were foreordained in the purposes of God before the foundation of the world it does not mean we were not formed by natural processes. If you are going to build a doctrine of the preexistence of plants from your AV rendition of that verse you can just as easily construct a doctrine that includes plants evolving as one that excludes them.

 

[1611AV]

The bible wasn't written by King James or his translation committee, so an argument based solely on his particular bible's rendering of the Hebrew is hardly 'biblically speaking'. Besides even your interpretation of the AV does not say what form the pre-existence of the plants took. You and I were foreordained in the purposes of God before the foundation of the world it does not mean we were not formed by natural processes. If you are going to build a doctrine of the preexistence of plants from your AV rendition of that verse you can just as easily construct a doctrine that includes plants evolving as one that excludes them.

Spin it any way you want. Lets look at it another way then. The plants didnt show up until God sent rain and Man to till the ground. So again, NO EVOLUTION OF PLANTS. Unless of course you believe plants did not show up until man evolved. But... Ask a evolutionist about that one

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

You can check that against almost any version.

 

[Delphiki]

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

Didn't read all the thread so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I think you may be overlooking some key words. This doesn't say plants came after man, it's saying farmed plants came after men.

Genesis 1 clearly describes plants, along with rain coming before man in the second day.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

For extra credit I'll point out that this also contradicts your Genesis 2 example stating that there was no rain until man was made. So right there, we have a blatant contradiction in the very next chapter of Genesis.

 

[Tiberius]

As long as your satisfied, thats all that matters. But please dont misquote the Word of God as read in the King James Bible as reads Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Its always God!

Who's misquoting? I simply choosing to interpret it differently to you. And unless you can give me some solid reason why your interpretation is better than mine, I ain't changing.

And what was always God? The two lights?

Actually, so much for the earth being responsible for the evolution of plants since God had already created them before he placed them in the Earth.

He only commanded the Earth to bring forth the plants he already created. Kinda like when we plant a seed, the Earth doesn't create the seed, it brings the plant or seed forth.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

The passage you quoted clearly refers to herbs and plants of the field. Now, isn't this talking about cultivated land? harvesting crops? It is NOT talking about wild plants! Crop plants have been artificially selected by Humans. Whereas the wild plants were naturally selected by evolution! Your argument does not apply!

 

[mzungu]

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

No matter how hard I tried I could not even find the letter "P" to form the word "PLANT" from that sentence, let alone the whole "plants did not evolve" thing

Spin it anyway you like but explain how did this:

Become this:

 

[Assyrian]

Spin it any way you want. Lets look at it another way then. The plants didnt show up until God sent rain and Man to till the ground.

Actually in Genesis 1 you have grass herbs and trees brought forth from the earth, herbs bearing seeds and trees bearing fruit all back on day 3, well before God made man.

So again, NO EVOLUTION OF PLANTS. Unless of course you believe plants did not show up until man evolved. But... Ask a evolutionist about that one

That is what Genesis 2 teaches, as well and birds and beasts being created after man too. This is a completely different order of creation form Genesis 1 which has plants and trees being created first, then birds, then beasts, and finally man and woman. Two completely different sequences, mean either the bible contradicts itself, or the passages were not mean as a literal timetables of creation.

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

You can check that against almost any version.

21c KJV and before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
ASV And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;
BBE In the day when the Lord God made earth and heaven there were no plants of the field on the earth, and no grass had come up: for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to do work on the land.
CEV no grass or plants were growing anywhere. God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land.
ESV When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
GNB there were no plants on the earth and no seeds had sprouted, because he had not sent any rain, and there was no one to cultivate the land;
GOD'S WORD Wild bushes and plants were not on the earth yet because the LORD God hadn't sent rain on the earth. Also, there was no one to farm the land.
JPS No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
LITV And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
MSG At the time GOD made Earth and Heaven, before any grasses or shrubs had sprouted from the ground--GOD hadn't yet sent rain on Earth, nor was there anyone around to work the ground
NASB Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
NET Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
NIV and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
NKJV before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
NLT there were no plants or grain growing on the earth, for the LORD God had not sent any rain. And no one was there to cultivate the soil.
NRSV when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground;
RSVA when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
RV And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
WEB No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
YLT and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground,

Like I said I have no problem about plants being created before man in Genesis 2, it shows us the two accounts cannot be meant literally.

What is interesting checking different versions is how they deal with your per-existence of plants and the AV's translation of the verse you get it from. We find this translations in bibles that are even older than the AV, a like Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthews, Bishops and Geneva, though not, as I said, in Coverdale. You also find the AV's translation being followed in some of the updates of the AV like Websters, Darby and the American KJV. Yet even updates like the New King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version abandon the AV's translation of this verse.

 

[Naraoia]

This is false. You are confusing scientists with peer-reviewed science papers. 0.01% of these papers are creationist, but there are thousands of scientists who believe in creation or don't believe in evolution.

Where do the numbers come from, and what percentage of the scientific community does "thousands of scientists" make?

When you publish a paper though which promotes creationism, you loose your job so most scientists don't do this.

Do you, now?

There is an alternative to it too. What if god adapted his message to humanity's maturity.

Let me explain with a secular example: little children and babies.
Consider some little child - say a seven years old - that asks were babies come from. Will you explain the complete and detailed human sexuality? I don't think so.

Heh, my poor mum had little choice but to explain when I was about to have a little brother at age 5. I was one curious little brat

Really? And what is oxydized then? Because you can't have reduction without oxydation.

You nerd.

 

[1611AV]

Actually in Genesis 1 you have grass herbs and trees brought forth from the earth, herbs bearing seeds and trees bearing fruit all back on day 3, well before God made man.

That is what Genesis 2 teaches, as well and birds and beasts being created after man too. This is a completely different order of creation form Genesis 1 which has plants and trees being created first, then birds, then beasts, and finally man and woman. Two completely different sequences, mean either the bible contradicts itself, or the passages were not mean as a literal timetables of creation.


21c KJV and before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
ASV And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;
BBE In the day when the Lord God made earth and heaven there were no plants of the field on the earth, and no grass had come up: for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to do work on the land.
CEV no grass or plants were growing anywhere. God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land.
ESV When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
GNB there were no plants on the earth and no seeds had sprouted, because he had not sent any rain, and there was no one to cultivate the land;
GOD'S WORD Wild bushes and plants were not on the earth yet because the LORD God hadn't sent rain on the earth. Also, there was no one to farm the land.
JPS No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
LITV And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
MSG At the time GOD made Earth and Heaven, before any grasses or shrubs had sprouted from the ground--GOD hadn't yet sent rain on Earth, nor was there anyone around to work the ground
NASB Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
NET Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
NIV and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
NKJV before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
NLT there were no plants or grain growing on the earth, for the LORD God had not sent any rain. And no one was there to cultivate the soil.
NRSV when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground;
RSVA when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
RV And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
WEB No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
YLT and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground,

Like I said I have no problem about plants being created before man in Genesis 2, it shows us the two accounts cannot be meant literally.

What is interesting checking different versions is how they deal with your per-existence of plants and the AV's translation of the verse you get it from. We find this translations in bibles that are even older than the AV, a like Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthews, Bishops and Geneva, though not, as I said, in Coverdale. You also find the AV's translation being followed in some of the updates of the AV like Websters, Darby and the American KJV. Yet even updates like the New King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version abandon the AV's translation of this verse.

There is no contradiction at all. The point is God created the plants before he placed them in the earth and before man was created. The earth was commanded to bring forth the plants, not create them. As is clearly read in all the versions above.

Man was created a few days later. Keep in mind there was neither the sun or rain at that time. Kinda hard for plants to grow without them. No Evolution to be found.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Notice the position of the plants now.

 

[TheReasoner]

There is no contradiction at all. The point is God created the plants before he placed them in the earth and before man was created. The earth was commanded to bring forth the plants, not create them. As is clearly read in all the versions above.

Man was created a few days later. Keep in mind there was neither the sun or rain at that time. Kinda hard for plants to grow without them. No Evolution to be found.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Notice the position of the plants now.

And the sun popping up the fourth day also is not a contradiction when read literally?

 

[1611AV]

And the sun popping up the fourth day also is not a contradiction when read literally?

Nope, and neither does it demonstrate evolution but only creation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nope, and neither does it demonstrate evolution but only creation.

Or it demonstrates a poor copy of an Egyptian creation myth.

 

[TheReasoner]

Nope, and neither does it demonstrate evolution but only creation.

Rrrright. Good one! I'm taking it you're trying to be humorous?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1611AV, I have a couple of questions (which might have been asked already, but oh well):

How do you determine what parts of the Bible should be read literally, and which parts metaphorically?
What do you do when God's Creation and God's Word contradict? What if, say, the Bible said the Moon was made of cheese (it doesn't, obviously, but y'know)?

Ta

 

[AV1611VET]

What if, say, the Bible said the Moon was made of cheese (it doesn't, obviously, but y'know)?

I'd like to answer this part, if that's okay?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'd like to answer this part, if that's okay?

Be my guest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Be my guest.

If the Bible said the moon was made of cream cheese (I mean no disrespect changing your words) ... but if the the Bible said the moon was made of cream cheese, then I would surmise that 'cream cheese' -- as we know it -- needs another name; or at least, needs to share its name with the cosmology of the moon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Be my guest.

Somewhat along this line of questioning, I [dis]like the way scientists come in with their myopic tools and, despite the fact that the Bible calls it "brass", and never once uses the word "bronze" -- scientists call it the Bronze Age.

 

[Tiberius]

In other words, you change modern words to suit the Bible and then claim that the Bible was right all along?

And if I change my name to Algernon Kookleberry because some guy two thousand years ago made a prophecy that Algernon Kookleberry would become the leader of the world, does that mean he was right?

And 1611AV, I can't help but notice that you have completely ignored the points I raised in my last post, despite the fact that you have been in this thread since I posted them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the Bible said the moon was made of cream cheese (I mean no disrespect changing your words) ... but if the the Bible said the moon was made of cream cheese, then I would surmise that 'cream cheese' -- as we know it -- needs another name; or at least, needs to share its name with the cosmology of the moon.

So you would infer an alternate definition of the Hebrew word for 'cream cheese', in order to keep the Bible literally correct? Sort of a variation of a hapax legomenon?

[That is, it's a single instance of a definition of a word ('cream cheese' being used as an accurate term for the regolith of the Moon) of a word ('cream cheese') that has a far more common definition ('cream cheese' being used for, well, cheese).]

Assuming there is actually a Hebrew word for 'cream cheese' that means the same as the English, of course .

Somewhat along this line of questioning, I [dis]like the way scientists come in with their myopic tools and, despite the fact that the Bible calls it "brass", and never once uses the word "bronze" -- scientists call it the Bronze Age.

Science doesn't always conform to the Bible's chronology. Indeed, why should it?