Evolution and Genesis account of creation

[Erik Nelson]

Well, if God made Adam from dust that is both manufactured and formed.

Did not mean to imply that Genesis 1 and 2 are intrinsically inconsistent in any way

 

[dad]

To read Genesis 1/2 as a scientific description of creation is not the right way of reading it, IMHO.

Limiting it to a scientific description is not correct. Science doesn't cover the half of it..(being generous).

People in those times used symbolism for everything. They did not care about nature sciences.

Don't worry about what you think people did. It's God's book.

When they said that we are from dust, they did not mean our chemical composition. They meant it as a symbol of mortality. We are made to the image of God, but still mortal.

Says you. Nonsense. The creation of God is not subject to whims of men, especially unfounded ones.

"And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes."
Gen 18:27
-> Abraham was not made of ashes... not literally. This was their symbolic language. Abraham was not giving us a scientific description of his body, he just symbolically said that he is amazed that he was able to speak with God, even though he is just a fleshy, mortal, sinful, weak, destroyable, fragile man.

Abe was aware that man was made from dust, and was reverent in including that in his prayer.

When we begin to understand their language and realize it is not our language, all the controversy between some Christians and science will disappear.

The distance between lies and truth cannot disappear. The lies will be defeated! Totally.

 

[dad]

Did not mean to imply that Genesis 1 and 2 are intrinsically inconsistent in any way

God brought out different aspects of things in chapter two. It is no surprise that, looking back at what was already finished and done and created and over with, that He brought out/emphasized.

 

[trophy33]

Limiting it to a scientific description is not correct. Science doesn't cover the half of it..(being generous).
Don't worry about what you think people did. It's God's book.
Says you. Nonsense. The creation of God is not subject to whims of men, especially unfounded ones.
Abe was aware that man was made from dust, and was reverent in including that in his prayer.
The distance between lies and truth cannot disappear. The lies will be defeated! Totally.

You are the type of Christian that is hard to talk to, because you are closed in your tradition. I could response to all your responses, but it would be fruitless, as I can predict from the style you use. If you want to believe that your body is composed of ashes, whatever.

 

[dad]

You are the type of Christian that is hard to talk to, because you are closed in your tradition. I could response to all your responses, but it would be fruitless, as I can predict from the style you use. If you want to believe that your body is composed of ashes, whatever.

If God made the universe from nothing that does not mean it is nothing now. If God made man from dirt that does not mean we are now dirt.

 

[trophy33]

If God made the universe from nothing that does not mean it is nothing now. If God made man from dirt that does not mean we are now dirt.

In that case if evolution says we are from animals, that does not mean we are animals now and there is no problem with it.

If you are feeling bad to be from animals, animals are still more then just ashes.

 

[dad]

In that case if evolution says we are from animals, that does not mean we are animals now and there is no problem with it.

If you are feeling bad to be from animals, animals are still more then just ashes.

There is no relation to how God created man and evolution. One cannot, however use a faulty interpretation of Scripture..(saying that we are not now dust) as some excuse for evolution. Elementary.

By the way I am not feeling bad to have been from animals anymore than I am feeling bad for being made from sugar plum fairy droppings or pink unicorn horns. Man was created by God and we can feel great about that.

 

[trophy33]

There is no relation to how God created man and evolution. One cannot, however use a faulty interpretation of Scripture..(saying that we are not now dust) as some excuse for evolution. Elementary.

By the way I am not feeling bad to have been from animals anymore than I am feeling bad for being made from sugar plum fairy droppings or pink unicorn horns. Man was created by God and we can feel great about that.

To say evolution did not happen is like to say that chemistry does not work. Genesis does not talk about such issues. Genesis is tellling a story, a story about our place in this world. Not a scientific description of our bodily composition/origin.

Its a "how our home was prepared for us story" , not a "how our house was made description".

 

[dad]

To say evolution did not happen is like to say that chemistry does not work

No one said evolving did not happen to the created kinds. Anything else is a figment of your imagination.

Genesis does not talk about such issues.

There are clues. One clue would be that all the various species and etc that adapted from original kinds we see today could not begin to fit on the ark. This tells us a lot of evolving happened.

Genesis is tellling a story, a story about our place in this world.

Says you. Genesis is actually the book of beginnings. Real beginnings.

Not a story of our bodily composition.

Since Adam's composition was right in chapter one, your claim is utterly destroyed.

 

[trophy33]

No one said evolving did not happen to the created kinds. Anything else is a figment of your imagination.


There are clues. One clue would be that all the various species and etc that adapted from original kinds we see today could not begin to fit on the ark. This tells us a lot of evolving happened.
Says you. Genesis is actually the book of beginnings. Real beginnings.
Since Adam's composition was right in chapter one, your claim is utterly destroyed.

Your worldview does not work. So we can talk all the day on the internet forum, but your computer, your GPS and your health issues treatment in real life will work because of the real science, not because of your view of Genesis.

The young earth creationism does not have any working model.

 

[The Barbarian]

By the way I am not feeling bad to have been from animals anymore than I am feeling bad for being made from sugar plum fairy droppings or pink unicorn horns.

Both of those are a better fit for Genesis than YE creationism.

Man was created by God

He was. The problem is, you don't approve of the way God did it.

 

[mark kennedy]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

The Genesis account of creation is written in a distinctive literary form, it's an historic narrative. There is no figurative language, the requsite like or as, as a basis for that kind of comparative description. An allegorical interpretations can be dismissed as simple unbelief, that approach does a great diservice to the content of the message. What would the purpose of the Sabbath if this is all allegorical?

 

[trophy33]

The Genesis account of creation is written in a distinctive literary form, it's an historic narrative. There is no figurative language...

- abyss, primal waters
- repetitions: "and it was evening and it was morning... day xyz"
- firmanent
- dust
- image of God
- breath of life
- talking snake
- tree of life, tree of knowledge
- taking one side of Adam and making Eve from it
- God resting
- greater light, lesser light
- etc.

The Genesis account of creation is literally overflowing with poetic/figurative language.

 

[mark kennedy]

- abyss, primal waters
- repetitions: "and it was evening and it was morning... day xyz"
- firmanent
- dust
- image of God
- breath of life
- talking snake
- tree of life, tree of knowledge
- taking one side of Adam and making Eve from it
- God resting
- greater light, lesser light
- etc.

The Genesis account of creation is literally overflowing with poetic/figurative language.

No its not, figurative language is when a parable sttarts off 'the kingdom of heavven is like', or ' garments white as wool'. What you are looking at is poetic prose which has been written in a style that lends itself to memorazation and reflects cultural norms of the time. Figurative language compares two similar things, there is none of that in Genesis 1. You don't see that much figurative language except in the names and even that isn't figurative until the serpent, which is more of a proper name then a figure of speech. What your doing is allegirizing which isn't interpretive, it's capricious.

 

[trophy33]

No its not, figurative language is when a parable sttarts off 'the kingdom of heavven is like', or ' garments white as wool'. What you are looking at is poetic prose which has been written in a style that lends itself to memorazation and reflects cultural norms of the time. Figurative language compares two similar things, there is none of that in Genesis 1. You don't see that much figurative language except in the names and even that isn't figurative until the serpent, which is more of a proper name then a figure of speech. What your doing is allegirizing which isn't interpretive, it's capricious.

Genesis says that there is a bigger and a lesser light. Scientifically, they are both huge objects and moon does not even produce any light, its all the light of the sun.

Genesis is written from the viewpoint of a man, not knowing much about the fabric of cosmos, but seeing (by inspiration) Gods handiwork in the world and in the order, that God prepared the world for us to live in it.

Reading Genesis as a scientific description leads to a huge confusion and useless conflict with science. You will end up believing that the earth is flat (and hollow in the same time), that your thinking is being processed in your kidneys and similar.

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis says that there is a bigger and a lesser light. Scientifically, they are both huge objects and moon does not even produce any light, its all the light of the sun.

Never the less, there is a greater light, the sun, and a lesser light, the moon. The fact that the moon is simply reflecting light changes nothing.

Genesis is written from the viewpoint of a man, not knowing much about the fabric of cosmos, but seeing (by inspiration) Gods handiwork in the world and in the order, that God prepared the world for us to live in it.

Science itself is crafted from a human perspective, it just has a more meticulous step wise logic. The point of Genesis is that God created the heavens and the earth, life in general and man in particular. This sets a hermeneutic principle that literally, transcends all the follows. Life on earth is God's handiwork and God is not subject to the limits we're are used to being subject to, the universe and how it's ordered is subject to him.

Reading Genesis as a scientific description leads to a huge confusion and useless conflict with science. You will end up believing that the earth is flat (and hollow in the same time), that your thinking is being processed in your kidneys and similar.

Science is not the sole arbitrator of truth, it is an inductive approach to the study of natural phenomenon. It is deliberately limited in it's epistemology, as is theology as a matter of fact. Both science and theology are good about staying in their lanes but occasionally they overlap. I have no problem with ancient people thinking the sun revolved around the earth, because even astronomers right up until the Scientific Revolution thought so because that is exactly how it appeared to them.

I've found no fundamental conflict between science and theology, they are just two very different approaches to two fundamentally different things. People who put them at odds demonstrate a lack of appreciation for the dynamics of both, and fail to get the real good of neither.

 

[trophy33]

Never the less, there is a greater light, the sun, and a lesser light, the moon.

Yes, from a human viewpoint. Technically, moon is not a light. But technicalities are not the goal of Genesis. And thats my point.

As moon is not a light, so also we are not made of dust. Our kidneys do not think and there is no firm "firmanent" in the sky. Bible is not a science book.

It does not mean that Bible contains "lies", its just a different language, a different way of communicating the message.

 

[The Barbarian]

Genesis says that there is a bigger and a lesser light. Scientifically, they are both huge objects and moon does not even produce any light, its all the light of the sun.

True, but the men who wrote down the Genesis story didn't know that. They were inspired by God to speak of God's message. Planetary astronomy was not part of His message.

 

[trophy33]

True, but the men who wrote down the Genesis story didn't know that. They were inspired by God to speak of God's message. Planetary astronomy was not part of His message.

Exactly.

 

[dad]

Your worldview does not work. So we can talk all the day on the internet forum, but your computer, your GPS and your health issues treatment in real life will work because of the real science, not because of your view of Genesis.

The young earth creationism does not have any working model.

Pretending GPS and computers is related in any way to beliefs science has about creation is delusional.