No Back Door

[inquiring mind]

If the writer of Genesis had no Spirit-led knowledge regarding science, why did he mention with every statement of creation regarding living things, except one, “after its/his/their kind” in the first place? Why not stated as in Genesis 1:1? Why wouldn’t anyone with a complete lack of scientific influence have simply said, “God made/created so on, and so on”? If those three words (after its kind) had been left off, which by the way aren’t infrequently or flexibly included, but are adamantly included, there would be a back door interpretation for macroevolution. Man, the exception, had no mention of created ‘after his kind,’ but rather in God’s image (still no back door interpretation).

 

[Speedwell]

If the writer of Genesis had no Spirit-led knowledge regarding science, why did he mention with every statement of creation regarding living things, except one, “after its/his/their kind” in the first place? Why not stated as in Genesis 1:1? Why wouldn’t anyone with a complete lack of scientific influence have simply said, “God made/created so on, and so on”? If those three words (after its kind) had been left off, which by the way aren’t infrequently or flexibly included, but are adamantly included, there would be a back door interpretation for macroevolution. Man, the exception, had no mention of created ‘after his kind,’ but rather in God’s image (still no back door interpretation).

The phrase was intended to highlight the orderliness of God's creation: figs don't randomly grow on olive trees, nor cows spontaneously give birth to sheep. There is no biblical evidence that the word "kinds" was meant as establishing an immutable divine taxonomy; rather, the word is clearly used as a relative qualifier.

 

[Jimmy D]

If the writer of Genesis had no Spirit-led knowledge regarding science, why did he mention with every statement of creation regarding living things, except one, “after its/his/their kind” in the first place? Why not stated as in Genesis 1:1? Why wouldn’t anyone with a complete lack of scientific influence have simply said, “God made/created so on, and so on”? If those three words (after its kind) had been left off, which by the way aren’t infrequently or flexibly included, but are adamantly included, there would be a back door interpretation for macroevolution. Man, the exception, had no mention of created ‘after his kind,’ but rather in God’s image (still no back door interpretation).

If the writer was spirit led, how come he got the order of creation events so horribly wrong?

 

[bhsmte]

If the writer was spirit led, how come he got the order of creation events so horribly wrong?

He was having a bad day?

 

[inquiring mind]

The phrase was intended to highlight the orderliness of God's creation: figs don't randomly grow on olive trees, nor cows spontaneously give birth to sheep. There is no biblical evidence that the word "kinds" was meant as establishing an immutable divine taxonomy; rather, the word is clearly used as a relative qualifier.

Maybe, maybe not... the writer sure places emphasis on it.

 

[inquiring mind]

If the writer was spirit led, how come he got the order of creation events so horribly wrong?

How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the writer was spirit led, how come he got the order of creation events so horribly wrong?

Because God created them in the order He did, but academia came along and date-stamped things, then arranged them in chronological order, claiming they showed up that way.

Thus you have a man having 20-30 years of age living in a garden with trees that could have 10 years of age; but the trees came first.

 

[Kylie]

If the writer of Genesis had no Spirit-led knowledge regarding science, why did he mention with every statement of creation regarding living things, except one, “after its/his/their kind” in the first place? Why not stated as in Genesis 1:1? Why wouldn’t anyone with a complete lack of scientific influence have simply said, “God made/created so on, and so on”? If those three words (after its kind) had been left off, which by the way aren’t infrequently or flexibly included, but are adamantly included, there would be a back door interpretation for macroevolution. Man, the exception, had no mention of created ‘after his kind,’ but rather in God’s image (still no back door interpretation).

Maybe because he could see that animals could breed and produce offspring that way?

 

[Occams Barber]

If the writer of Genesis had no Spirit-led knowledge regarding science, why did he mention with every statement of creation regarding living things, except one, “after its/his/their kind” in the first place? Why not stated as in Genesis 1:1? Why wouldn’t anyone with a complete lack of scientific influence have simply said, “God made/created so on, and so on”? If those three words (after its kind) had been left off, which by the way aren’t infrequently or flexibly included, but are adamantly included, there would be a back door interpretation for macroevolution. Man, the exception, had no mention of created ‘after his kind,’ but rather in God’s image (still no back door interpretation).

I don't understand how the addition of 'after their kind' can be interpreted as somehow disqualifying macroevolution.

What are you assuming that 'after their kind' actually means?

There's also the problem that, if evolution is correct, then Genesis is, technically, wrong so it doesn't matter what it says.
OB

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe, maybe not... the writer sure places emphasis on it.

Yes, in poetical writing like Gen 1 that's called "refrain."

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't understand how the addition of 'after their kind' can be interpreted as somehow disqualifying macroevolution.
What are you assuming that 'after their kind' actually means?

I apologize to everyone for a confusing question... the OP is too wordy. It just seems odd to me that he would feel the need to follow ‘every creation account’ with ‘after its kind,’ unless it was for a reason, he couldn’t even be aware of. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he have just said, ”God created ...”? Then the mechanics involved would definitely be open. But, by being so adamant with the inclusion of ‘after its kind,’ it’s almost as if (maybe my interpretation is wrong) he’s laying a defense against things changing into something else completely (becoming different kinds – I suppose species, genus, family, whatever you want to call it that is something other than a variation only– macroevolution), which he couldn’t have known about on his own.

There's also the problem that, if evolution is correct, then Genesis is, technically, wrong so it doesn't matter what it says.

To just say evolution is confusing. There is no denying microevolution; but macroevolution is another story, which in my mind anyway, still involves speculation that brings into question God's involvement.

 

[Brightmoon]

I apologize to everyone for a confusing question... the OP is too wordy. It just seems odd to me that he would feel the need to follow ‘every creation account’ with ‘after its kind,’ unless it was for a reason, he couldn’t even be aware of. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he have just said, ”God created ...”? Then the mechanics involved would definitely be open. But, by being so adamant with the inclusion of ‘after its kind,’ it’s almost as if (maybe my interpretation is wrong) he’s laying a defense against things changing into something else completely (becoming different kinds – I suppose species, genus, family, whatever you want to call it that is something other than a variation only– macroevolution), which he couldn’t have known about on his own.


To just say evolution is confusing. There is no denying microevolution; but macroevolution is another story, which in my mind anyway, still involves speculation that brings into question God's involvement.

your confusion over Microevolution/ macroevolution is understandable because you’re using creationist terminology. Macroevolution is just speciation. This is a SCIENTIFIC definition. So a species that splits into two has undergone macroevolution. A lineage that splits into more than one species has undergone macroevolution. The creationist definition of kind has macroevolutionary overtones if the word kind is used to describe a genus or order. Since the creationist definition can at times describe a species , a genus , or an order; the scientific community considers kind to be a useless definition

 

[Speedwell]

To just say evolution is confusing. There is no denying microevolution; but macroevolution is another story, which in my mind anyway, still involves speculation that brings into question God's involvement.

Except that it doesn't. Not for most theists, anyway, The notion that evolution somehow denies God's authorship of our being is a blatant falsehood and propagating that falsehood is one of the main reasons that creationists are held in such contempt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that it doesn't. Not for most theists, anyway, The notion that evolution somehow denies God's authorship of our being is a blatant falsehood and propagating that falsehood is one of the main reasons that creationists are held in such contempt.

Okay with you if we creationists hold evolutionists in the same contempt?

 

[Brightmoon]

Okay with you if we creationists hold evolutionists in the same contempt?

As long as the liar is getting away with the lies they hold the truth teller in contempt . Once the mark realizes they’ve been scammed they dump the liar. Creationism is responsible for a lot of the atheism they keep complaining about because of the lies they keep telling about natural phenomena

 

[inquiring mind]

As long as the liar is getting away with the lies they hold the truth teller in contempt . Once the mark realizes they’ve been scammed they dump the liar. Creationism is responsible for a lot of the atheism they keep complaining about because of the lies they keep telling about natural phenomena

Why should Creationists questioning ‘natural phenomena speculations’ be considered a lie, any more than Evolutionists questioning Creation? Pre-atheists should weigh everything very carefully, even if it’s questionable to them. They may find there is more there than what they first see.

 

[Speedwell]

Why should Creationists questioning ‘natural phenomena speculations’ be considered a lie...

It isn't. Science thrives on honest questioning. Dishonest statements to the effect that science denies the existence of God are another thing altogether.,

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is responsible for a lot of the atheism ...

Do you really expect me to believe that?

So in atheist-think, it's either a literal Genesis 1 or atheism ... right?

They can't pick theistic evolution?

And for the record, are you justifying their decision?

Or do you think they're making an eternal mistake?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should Creationists questioning ‘natural phenomena speculations’ be considered a lie, any more than Evolutionists questioning Creation? Pre-atheists should weigh everything very carefully, even if it’s questionable to them. They may find there is more there than what they first see.

They must think that God, if He exists, is going to buy into their mindset and make an exception.

Standing before almighty God on Judgement Day, having gotten there because of their "disgust" for creationism as espoused by a minority of creationists isn't going to cut it.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you really expect me to believe that?

So in atheist-think, it's either a literal Genesis 1 or atheism ... right?

They can't pick theistic evolution?

Many do, but it is difficult if they have been indoctrinated with the notion that Christian denominations which tolerate theistic evolution are works of the devil. It's easier for some to give up on the idea of Christianity altogether.

And for the record, are you justifying their decision?

Or do you think they're making an eternal mistake?

It certainly is a mistake to believe the lie that evolution denies the existence of God.