How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

[drich0150]

About a year ago I set to read the text and see whether or not it conflicts with science. It's not finished but here is what I have so far if it can help. Drive

Again what I have done in no way need go into this volume or depth.

What I have done is allow anyone to fill in any date they see fit. as nothing in the bible indicates that what God did in the first 7 days (aside from the completed garden) need align itself with any scientific hard data.

The only thing that can be argued is that science says the sun was here before the earth. to which one can observe if the person recording the event of creation where centrally placed to watch God unfold the creation of the earth in 7 days then from that person's perspective he may not have seen the sun or the moon or stars till day 4 (after the first great rains cleared the sky)

 

[drich0150]

The bible couldn’t be clearer on the separation of church and state, Christians should ‘have nothing to do with civilian affairs’. In the early church, roles within the state apparatus and membership of the church were seen as incompatible. How unclear is ‘my kingdom is not of this world?’. Any deep involvement in politics is inseparable from a long string of ethical compromises, as can be plainly seen in church support for the current US administration.



Not at all, it’s just a question of looking into the context of the time etc. John H Walton’s writings on it are a good place to start.

you didn't watch the video did you?

 

[Tom 1]

you didn't watch the video did you?

No, I will though. I think it's interesting, as an idea, but I don't think it's a good idea. There are good reasons for the whole 'come out and be separate' philosophy that runs through the whole bible. Any kind of religious state involves compromise of one kind or another, whether that's due to trying to force other people to follow a belief that isn't their own, or making some other set of compromises to try and accomodate everyone. Either way the end result is never going to be all that great, I think. Churches should let governments be governments, for all the people, and vice versa.

 

[drich0150]

Macroevolution is the change from one distinct species to another.

Where does God talk about macro evolution in His Word?

Christians do affirm micro evolution ... life produces after their kind and is biblically supported.

Again such terms did not exist. Do you not fully understand the implications of this statement? If you did then you would understand that terms or the attempt to identify the evolution of a species when there where no such classifications of a genius and species is a non-sequitur.

You are asking a question like: according to Washington's biography what kind car did George Washington drive? Well again in that time there was no such form of transportation. if there was no such form transportation then washington could not have driven a car. However it does mention his favorite horse and many attributes about it. But then you assume because washington did not get around the country the way you understand how we get around, he could not have gone far/fought the british up and down the east coast.

You must consider what is available and what the bible does say about what was there.

like wise if the term birds trees and plants are of a modern terminology that describe a system we developed 5000 years after these events had taken place to identify the things in and of this world in a scientific manner then like assuming washington had a car or truck, it is wrog to apply these terms to what was described in genesis as the modern equivalent. Why? because again the word in hebrew we translate into bird, does not directly translate into Aven meaning the word does not narrow the creatures in the hebrew to what we today would identify as a aven/bird.

Again the word define literally means winged creature. The passage accurately reads on Day 5 God created winged creatures. Now this could be gnats, flys birds bats in the way these people classified animals wing animals despite how we would see them insect, mammal, aven, fish would all be classified as a winged creature which again in Genesis 1 in the english get translated 'bird.'

So how can you ask for a evolutionary trait or trail which such a complex system of classification could not be supported by this almost elementary system of identifying life?

So to demand to see a passage where God said birds evolved is foolish. Not because they did not evolve, nor because they did. This is a foolish ask because you are demanding to assume that what genesis identifies as a bird is in fact what you would identify as a bird in this modern time. When in fact I showed you in the original language the word for bird simply means winged creature. without a way to identify specific species (as they did not even have the vernacular nor the structure to lable and catalog all the different traits to be able to observe change) asking for where the bible says we evolved is a cop out argument at best.

Here is exactly what I mean, here is a list of every living thing God was to have created per the first chapter of genesis outside the garden:

`owph Commonly translated fowl but means covered with wings. (again flying insects and bats are also included) your bible says birds.
tanniyn This literally translates Sea monster indicates a massive sea snake or dragon. or to borrow a modern term Dinosaur. most bible translate "whale." (if you want proof or an example of an evolved animal... we have been told this animal is now what we call a whale but the word identifies a sea faring dinosaur)
nephesh Every living thing or creature in the sea. your bible says fish (but this includes millusks snakes coral sharks dolphins gators)
bĕhemah Wild or domesticated beast. you bible says cow or cattle
remes this is a catch all that means any creeping thing could mean a snake lizard bug sea serpent ect. but most translation insect.

from those 5 obscure ancient words that bear no resemblance to any modern understanding of how animals are identified and classified you assume what we have now is the only thig created then?

Again besides tradition and the assumption that your bible is not a translation and the interpretation you currently have is without error, How can anyone assume from that list of hebrew words and their meaning that God only put what we have now on this planet from the time of creation?

At the core of my meaning here is that you have no list of specific animals in the given to you to be able to say, this species was created day 5/6

Even
'adam refers to man kind and does not list out a genius and species. As far as having examples of possibly evolved man we do indeed have examples of sexually compatible species of giants called the nĕphiyl which means giants. what makes a giant? someone bigger taller or stronger, it depends on the culture, but either way this is another class of 'man/Homo' Not sapien. they where of the same genius but of the same species as again they where genetically compatible. but did not share enough genetic material to be considered the same species. Even to those who lived way back then who classified all living sea creatures under one word and all flying creatures under another. They saw a need to separate man from these nĕphiyl

Genesis 6 if you where wondering.

 

[drich0150]

Like the Tree of Knowledge of Good an Evil caused it's full effect after a one-time use, I think there is reason to believe the Tree of Life would also work similarly, therefore Adam and Eve never partook in its fruit. This is the reason God wanted to prevent them from eating it in Genesis 3:22-24

"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Also, Adams offspring, who never ate from the tree of life, lived just as long if not longer than he did. It seems people just lived longer in the early days of creation.

my bible seems to read a little differently.. it does not say the tree of life was a one time use thing.

It says Adam and eve could eat from any tree, except one.

Let's say adam and eve where placed in a garden for the 80 billion years evolution says it took to get to where we were 6000 years ago. now even if this garden was the size of the contentinal United states, after 80 billion years would you not have seen everything and done everything 3 times?

If I remember right there was only one tree of knowledge and it was centrally located in the bible. why where they both so close to it? because it represented the one thing they did not yet experience or know. If you where given such an expanse to roam and do with as you will would you set out to the one thing that would kill you first?

Their actions scream of complacency and boredom. why else would you doubt the word of god?

Again not to mention God told them they would die the day they even touched the fruit.

Who they where in the garden did die that day lest you say God is lying and the serpent was right. what was left was the clod of dirt (a soul and flesh milk shake) he was made from which was cast out so the clod of dirt would not live forever. (as he could no longer be trusted not to eat of a tree he was told to stay away from) Meaning this form we share was not intended to live forever.

 

[drich0150]

Before evolutionary and early earth scientific theories came into existence, I doubt there were too many questions or objections among Christians as to whether the Genesis account of creation was literal. This question of literary analysis has become increasingly popular in modern conversation of the Bible and is frequently employed to make the Word fit into another piece of seemingly contradictory knowledge we have learned from another source. And that's the problem:

Our way to approach the Word of God as a source of knowledge, must supersede all other sources which may compete with it. It is not necessary for the words and ideas of the Bible to cohere with all other sources which may exist now or in the future. In other words, there is no reason for us to hold the words we read in any other book or article with the same level of truth as the words we read in the Bible.

If you were to read a scientific article which tells how the beginning of the world happened and seems contrary to the words of scripture, you may seek to find how it coheres with the Word of God, however this is not necessary.

This is quite a bit different than how we think about reading two separate passages in scripture which seem contradictory to one another: we must approach both passages as being true since both are the Word of God, and at that point we may endeavor to understand how both are true simultaneously.

But there is no reason for us to accept second-hand scientific research as truth in the same way that we accept the Bible as truth (and I say this as a person who believes in much of early earth scientific theory). For everything you think you know about early earth science and evolutionary theory, most of us have not actually done the research first hand, and are therefore simply trusting what other people say as reliable and accurate. I'm not saying we must deny science, or that scientific pursuit is contrary to Biblical pursuit, but simply that scientific theory does not start with the same assumptions that we must start with when approaching the Bible, namely that the Words of the Bible must be true, while the words in a scientific journal may be true.

Therefore, it is not necessary for us to discover how the Genesis account of creation fits in with the scientific account, although we may still attempt to do so. We know at least the Genesis account is true.

great philosophy, but you do understand this next generation is not being taught this in school?
You do get the church here and in europe is faltering because "enlightenment through education" demand that because 'science' is able to provide technology it has now become 'god' and science say religion is for bigots and flat earth backwards thinkers.

 

[drich0150]

No, I will though. I think it's interesting, as an idea, but I don't think it's a good idea. There are good reasons for the whole 'come out and be separate' philosophy that runs through the whole bible. Any kind of religious state involves compromise of one kind or another, whether that's due to trying to force other people to follow a belief that isn't their own, or making some other set of compromises to try and accomodate everyone. Either way the end result is never going to be all that great, I think. Churches should let governments be governments, for all the people, and vice versa.

the video shows proof this country was found on Christian principles and that it has always been intended to be a christ based nation, that not till the last 40 years or so has their been a movement to take God out of government.

The first amendment reads Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Meaning the government shall have no say in where and how the people worship which includes bring their beliefs into the political office.

Again the video shows tons of evidence where this was the practice up until recently.

 

[eleos1954]

Again such terms did not exist. Do you not fully understand the implications of this statement? If you did then you would understand that terms or the attempt to identify the evolution of a species when there where no such classifications of a genius and species is a non-sequitur.

You are asking a question like: according to Washington's biography what kind car did George Washington drive? Well again in that time there was no such form of transportation. if there was no such form transportation then washington could not have driven a car. However it does mention his favorite horse and many attributes about it. But then you assume because washington did not get around the country the way you understand how we get around, he could not have gone far/fought the british up and down the east coast.

You must consider what is available and what the bible does say about what was there.

like wise if the term birds trees and plants are of a modern terminology that describe a system we developed 5000 years after these events had taken place to identify the things in and of this world in a scientific manner then like assuming washington had a car or truck, it is wrog to apply these terms to what was described in genesis as the modern equivalent. Why? because again the word in hebrew we translate into bird, does not directly translate into Aven meaning the word does not narrow the creatures in the hebrew to what we today would identify as a aven/bird.

Again the word define literally means winged creature. The passage accurately reads on Day 5 God created winged creatures. Now this could be gnats, flys birds bats in the way these people classified animals wing animals despite how we would see them insect, mammal, aven, fish would all be classified as a winged creature which again in Genesis 1 in the english get translated 'bird.'

So how can you ask for a evolutionary trait or trail which such a complex system of classification could not be supported by this almost elementary system of identifying life?

So to demand to see a passage where God said birds evolved is foolish. Not because they did not evolve, nor because they did. This is a foolish ask because you are demanding to assume that what genesis identifies as a bird is in fact what you would identify as a bird in this modern time. When in fact I showed you in the original language the word for bird simply means winged creature. without a way to identify specific species (as they did not even have the vernacular nor the structure to lable and catalog all the different traits to be able to observe change) asking for where the bible says we evolved is a cop out argument at best.

Here is exactly what I mean, here is a list of every living thing God was to have created per the first chapter of genesis outside the garden:

`owph Commonly translated fowl but means covered with wings. (again flying insects and bats are also included) your bible says birds.
tanniyn This literally translates Sea monster indicates a massive sea snake or dragon. or to borrow a modern term Dinosaur. most bible translate "whale." (if you want proof or an example of an evolved animal... we have been told this animal is now what we call a whale but the word identifies a sea faring dinosaur)
nephesh Every living thing or creature in the sea. your bible says fish (but this includes millusks snakes coral sharks dolphins gators)
bĕhemah Wild or domesticated beast. you bible says cow or cattle
remes this is a catch all that means any creeping thing could mean a snake lizard bug sea serpent ect. but most translation insect.

from those 5 obscure ancient words that bear no resemblance to any modern understanding of how animals are identified and classified you assume what we have now is the only thig created then?

Again besides tradition and the assumption that your bible is not a translation and the interpretation you currently have is without error, How can anyone assume from that list of hebrew words and their meaning that God only put what we have now on this planet from the time of creation?

At the core of my meaning here is that you have no list of specific animals in the given to you to be able to say, this species was created day 5/6

Even
'adam refers to man kind and does not list out a genius and species. As far as having examples of possibly evolved man we do indeed have examples of sexually compatible species of giants called the nĕphiyl which means giants. what makes a giant? someone bigger taller or stronger, it depends on the culture, but either way this is another class of 'man/Homo' Not sapien. they where of the same genius but of the same species as again they where genetically compatible. but did not share enough genetic material to be considered the same species. Even to those who lived way back then who classified all living sea creatures under one word and all flying creatures under another. They saw a need to separate man from these nĕphiyl

Genesis 6 if you where wondering.

If you want to rationalize the Lords Word with evolution that's up to you.

I am aware of the greek and hebrew words and definitions as you put forth ... nor does that change the basics.

He created them male and female ... after their kind. Do I need a biblical explanation of what that means? No I don't Do I need a list of every unique species He may or may not have not created ... no I don't. Do I need for Him to explain how He spoke things into existence? no I don't

Why don't I? Because I have faith in God. He didn't provide everything (every detail) we wanted to know .... He provided everything we need to know.

His main concern is relationship between Himself and mankind and that's what He focuses on ... and that is what we are to focus on.

Science and/or it's theories (and is ever changing) is important and interesting and I follow it somewhat ... but I do not try to reconcile the Word of God with it ... such as yourself.

It could make a good fiction novel though ;o)

God Bless.

 

[Brightmoon]

One can do this already it is called being a Bible believing Christian. sites that will help you are answersingenesis and creation.com.

Otherwise just take a knief to your bible.

answers in Genesis is a crackpot site and the pseudoscience explanations will only confuse you if you try to understand actual science.

 

[Brightmoon]

The seven day creation makes much more sense than the big bang sludge theory. There is also another theory, seven days is a marker for creation. After all, this story is told to those who had no clue of science. God created science. It would take many generations after to uncover it. God has released information as He promised He would. Lets not box His creation within a couple of pages meant to edify those at that time. There is more to the story for a more mature mind.
Blessings

you simply don’t understand science not that it doesn’t make sense. You could sum up the Big Bang accurately as
1BigBang ,
2light energy,
3cool down enough to form quarks,
4quarks cool enough to form subatomic particles,
5subatomic particles cool down enough to form hydrogen.
6Once you get enough hydrogen then you can get stars which are basically very hot balls of hydrogen.
7Fusion in those stars forms the elements up to iron
8Those early stars go nova and supernova and you get the rest of the natural elements
9 the elements scattered in space form dust ,then small asteroids and gas balls These then bang into each other and form planets and more stars.
10 early earth is smaller than it is now . a Mars sized asteroid smashes into it and formed the current earth and the moon

 

[Tolworth John]

answers in Genesis is a crackpot site and the pseudoscience explanations will only confuse you if you try to understand actual science.

While you may think that please remember that both AoG and the australian version Creation.com have challenged atheists to debate with them. Any subject at a neutral venue, cost to be shared and videos to be duplicated without any editting with a mutaly agreed host/referee.

This is always turned down as giving respectability to as you say 'crackpots'.

Both sites employ qualified scientists, both publish peer reviewed articles and both challenge the perception that evolution is scientific.

 

[Tolworth John]

you simply don’t understand science not that it doesn’t make sense. You could sum up the Big Bang accurately as
1BigBang ,
2light energy,
3cool down enough to form quarks,
4quarks cool enough to form subatomic particles,
5subatomic particles cool down enough to form hydrogen.
6Once you get enough hydrogen then you can get stars which are basically very hot balls of hydrogen.
7Fusion in those stars forms the elements up to iron
8Those early stars go nova and supernova and you get the rest of the natural elements
9 the elements scattered in space form dust ,then small asteroids and gas balls These then bang into each other and form planets and more stars.
10 early earth is smaller than it is now . a Mars sized asteroid smashes into it and formed the current earth and the moon

don't forget that matter and antimatter is created in equal amounts in the big bang.

That nateralism rejects the idea of caterstrophic events like a global flood yet also accepts mulyiple collissions between the planets, something that if Christians claimed had happened would be laughed out of exsistence.

There is the horizon problem, not enough time for the temperature to have equalled out.

Just to mention a few problems.

 

[Brightmoon]

don't forget that matter and antimatter is created in equal amounts in the big bang.

That nateralism rejects the idea of caterstrophic events like a global flood yet also accepts mulyiple collissions between the planets, something that if Christians claimed had happened would be laughed out of exsistence.

There is the horizon problem, not enough time for the temperature to have equalled out.

Just to mention a few problems.

of course planets collided. that’s why Venus spins backwards and Uranus rolls on its side like a ball. That is why earth is tilted 23 degrees . Because they’ve all been knocked out of true by being hit .

A global flood would have left a catastrophic flood layer over the entire earth, just like the bolide that killed off the non avian dinosaurs did . That global Flood layer doesn’t exist .
Life has been on this planet for about 4 billion years so the planet obviously had enough time to cool before that. And the earth isn’t as old as the universe is. What do you mean not enough time to cool?

 

[drich0150]

I think it was before 10,000 BC, so that would be before agriculture.

again lost on the point. as 4.5 billion years ago when science now says the earth was formed was also before agriculture. The narrative fits the claim.

I don't know how you fit all of the events in the garden between days 2 and 3 when man isn't created till day 6. It also requires rendering Erets as earth rather than land to tie it to Gen 1.

again you are still missing the key to all of this.
watch closely, forget what you think I am trying to say and just contemplate what I say next:

1) in gen 2:4 and 5 is a break from the 7 day creation that ends in 2:3.

2)if you read 4 and 5 it says all of chapter two happens with in this time frame, and the time frame given is day two the garden creation starts right after dry land, and day three it ends with the first rain.

3) So the garden and everything in it happens with in the time frame mentioned in gen 2:4 and 5. which means adam was a seperate creation than man outside the garden.

4) Adam was given a soul, and man out side the garden was just given a likness, IE genetic compatibility with Adam's family. Everything in the garden was complete as we understand everything outside the garden to have evolved into 6000 years ago (the exodus from the garden)
Meaning the garden was a picture of iron age earth when it comes to biological development. Ie the things in the garden repersented and was compatible with what had evolved out side for billions of years.

5) that means day 6 man and the rest of creation slowly grew and developed to the point where God knew Adam would be expelled, which again explains who his children married, where the city of nod came from cain fled too

let me know which of the 5 points you do not follow.

The ERV is not a version for serious inquiry into a text. The purpose of that version is to be easy to read for people who use sign language, not to be true to the Hebrew structure or vocabulary. It is not a "humble man's version" it is a version that is rendered down to the vocabulary available in sign language for people whose first language is sign language.

yeah I honest don't care. we can use whatever translation you like. the true of what I am teaching here does not depend on the use of one translation or the other. In however of 25 years of teaching and study you learn to teach to the least educated, as this is an open forum I am prepared for high school level sunday school.

I have also found if you can take a very complicated subject and make it simple not only will more people understand, those who think they know everything already may actually let their shields down long enough to learn something themselves. (if they can get past their own theories of what they think the OP is about and stop and read what was said with fresh eyes.

I understand putting a gap between Gen 2 and Gen 3, but it's a stretch to make that more than Adams lifetime of 900 and some years.

again the garden and everything in it per gen 2:4 and 5 was created apart from the rest of the earth. Adam's 930 years was of the earth. Ie his life time of 930 years in gen 5 started when he was expelled from the garden.

You try and overcome this limitation by placing Eden as not on earth. But the discription of Eden refers to actual places on earth for reference. I understand that these are modern names for ancient places. But they are still ancient places on earth. So if Eden is not on earth why does the author use earthly locations to pinpoint it's geographical location?

Alright then I'll conceed this point and reinforce the point I just made. If the garden was not considered to be seperate from the earth then why was Adam cast out from it and an angel placed to guard it? If the garden was earth then why is the distinction made? Why was Adam removed from the space he was created in and given to tend and placed on ground where by the toil and sweat from working the ground could he then eat?

The bible/God goes out of it's way to identify a vast difference between the garden and life in the garden and life on earth. this distinction is also carried over to gen 5 and Adam's life on earth verse his time spent in the garden.

I think it was before 10,000 BC, so that would be before agriculture.

and 4.5 billion years ago was also before agriculture.

I don't know how you fit all of the events in the garden between days 2 and 3 when man isn't created till day 6. It also requires rendering Erets as earth rather than land to tie it to Gen 1.

Again Adam #man with a soul is created in the completed garden as well as eve because everything in chapter 2 happens between days 2 and 3.

Then on day six man outside the garden was created. #evolved man

Adam had been given a soul in the garden and lived a different life than man who was just made in the image of God/Genetically compatible with adam if not then but 6000 years ago when Adam left the garden.

 

[drich0150]

If you want to rationalize the Lords Word with evolution that's up to you.

if the church is to have a future in the united states given our social and educational climates then it is something we will need to do otherwise the church will be consumed and discarded by the culture. Do you have kids? are you not concerned what they will do when asked to reconcile the discrepancies between what God says and what proven educational sources say?

The other thing you need to try and understand this theory does not teach evolution. it simply assimilates it. meaning anything science says in place of evolution can also be accepted and still a literal 7 day creation can work.

I am aware of the greek and hebrew words and definitions as you put forth ... nor does that change the basics.

kinda does if you are honest. those words do not describe animals has we understand them. so there is no way to measure or make change/evolution. Then I also pointed out "Other Races of man" who where obviously compatible with humanity, or do you simply ignore or object to noah's narrative?

He created them male and female ... after their kind. Do I need a biblical explanation of what that means? No I don't Do I need a list of every unique species He may or may not have not created ... no I don't. Do I need for Him to explain how He spoke things into existence? no I don't

he created everything male and female. i do not understand the point. even chromosomes are considered to be gender specific.

Why don't I? Because I have faith in God. He didn't provide everything (every detail) we wanted to know .... He provided everything we need to know.

my theory says he did. or at least allows for science to remain legitimate and not challenge one's faith.

His main concern is relationship between Himself and mankind and that's what He focuses on ... and that is what we are to focus on.

here's the dig.. Jesus references the creation account as a real legit thing. If science proves Jesus wrong how then can he be God?

If we loose creation all is at risk (to fresh young 'open' minds) you know the entire future of the church

Science and/or it's theories (and is ever changing) is important and interesting and I follow it somewhat ... but I do not try to reconcile the Word of God with it ... such as yourself.

again Science demands a new set of understanding and rules for each generation. This theory is adaptable to anything science has to say. no matter how it changes this all still works. Meaning on can have his faith and science too.

It could make a good fiction novel though ;o)

God Bless.

 

[Brightmoon]

While you may think that please remember that both AoG and the australian version Creation.com have challenged atheists to debate with them. Any subject at a neutral venue, cost to be shared and videos to be duplicated without any editting with a mutaly agreed host/referee.

This is always turned down as giving respectability to as you say 'crackpots'.

Both sites employ qualified scientists, both publish peer reviewed articles and both challenge the perception that evolution is scientific.

They might have challenged atheists but atheism is not synonymous with mainstream science . Science does debunk pseudoscience and if you believe that pseudoscience or inaccurate beliefs are part of your religion it will make you upset when you realize that they aren’t true. Too bad , so sad! That’s not a reason for Science to accept nonsense and call it scientific.

 

[Sanoy]

again lost on the point. as 4.5 billion years ago when science now says the earth was formed was also before agriculture. The narrative fits the claim.

again you are still missing the key to all of this.
watch closely, forget what you think I am trying to say and just contemplate what I say next:

1) in gen 2:4 and 5 is a break from the 7 day creation that ends in 2:3.

2)if you read 4 and 5 it says all of chapter two happens with in this time frame, and the time frame given is day two the garden creation starts right after dry land, and day three it ends with the first rain.

3) So the garden and everything in it happens with in the time frame mentioned in gen 2:4 and 5. which means adam was a seperate creation than man outside the garden.

4) Adam was given a soul, and man out side the garden was just given a likness, IE genetic compatibility with Adam's family. Everything in the garden was complete as we understand everything outside the garden to have evolved into 6000 years ago (the exodus from the garden)
Meaning the garden was a picture of iron age earth when it comes to biological development. Ie the things in the garden repersented and was compatible with what had evolved out side for billions of years.

5) that means day 6 man and the rest of creation slowly grew and developed to the point where God knew Adam would be expelled, which again explains who his children married, where the city of nod came from cain fled too

let me know which of the 5 points you do not follow.
yeah I honest don't care. we can use whatever translation you like. the true of what I am teaching here does not depend on the use of one translation or the other. In however of 25 years of teaching and study you learn to teach to the least educated, as this is an open forum I am prepared for high school level sunday school.

I have also found if you can take a very complicated subject and make it simple not only will more people understand, those who think they know everything already may actually let their shields down long enough to learn something themselves. (if they can get past their own theories of what they think the OP is about and stop and read what was said with fresh eyes.

again the garden and everything in it per gen 2:4 and 5 was created apart from the rest of the earth. Adam's 930 years was of the earth. Ie his life time of 930 years in gen 5 started when he was expelled from the garden.
Alright then I'll conceed this point and reinforce the point I just made. If the garden was not considered to be seperate from the earth then why was Adam cast out from it and an angel placed to guard it? If the garden was earth then why is the distinction made? Why was Adam removed from the space he was created in and given to tend and placed on ground where by the toil and sweat from working the ground could he then eat?

The bible/God goes out of it's way to identify a vast difference between the garden and life in the garden and life on earth. this distinction is also carried over to gen 5 and Adam's life on earth verse his time spent in the garden.


and 4.5 billion years ago was also before agriculture.

Again Adam #man with a soul is created in the completed garden as well as eve because everything in chapter 2 happens between days 2 and 3.

Then on day six man outside the garden was created. #evolved man

Adam had been given a soul in the garden and lived a different life than man who was just made in the image of God/Genetically compatible with Adam if not then but 6000 years ago when Adam left the garden.

If there are 2 creations of man, one between day 2/3 and others on day 6 then we may or may not be descended from the garden man from whose lineage we would acquire a soul. To put that bluntly, some of us may not have souls, or original sin. Your theory entails that conclusion, are you okay with it? Genesis 2:4-5 does not say all of this happened during day 2-3. It is a separate book that was later compiled with Gen 1, so it can't use Gen 1 as a preceding referent because this book was a stand alone book that was compiled adjacent to Gen 1 later on. On day 6 man is created in the image of God so where do you get the idea these men had no souls?

You cared very much about the translation you were using when I objected, calling it "the humble man's" version, and praising the active voice and how many mysteries that reveals. Now that you know it is a version for the deaf you suddenly don't care. When seriously studying the Bible it matters very much what translation you use. I say this because it is very important and not to be taken trivially, especially when the subject is being taught to others. For their sake we must do our best. I read in NLT and study in ESV and interlinear, it's okay to do both and use ERV and a study version.

There is nowhere in Genesis that says Eden was "apart" from the rest of the earth. Surely you mean " a part". When Adam was kicked out a guard was placed outside to keep Adam from coming back in. You would have to explain the necessity of such a guardian if it wasn't on earth. There is also another large problem. You have Adam dyeing twice, once on 'planet' Eden and once on Planet Earth. However Hebrews 9:27 says it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes the judgement.

 

[Brightmoon]

I really don’t see the need to retrofit the Bible into science . I just ignore Bronze Age tales about how the universe was formed because I understand that they actually didn’t know . I guess it just doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers some fundies

 

[eleos1954]

if the church is to have a future in the united states given our social and educational climates then it is something we will need to do otherwise the church will be consumed and discarded by the culture. Do you have kids? are you not concerned what they will do when asked to reconcile the discrepancies between what God says and what proven educational sources say?

The other thing you need to try and understand this theory does not teach evolution. it simply assimilates it. meaning anything science says in place of evolution can also be accepted and still a literal 7 day creation can work.

kinda does if you are honest. those words do not describe animals has we understand them. so there is no way to measure or make change/evolution. Then I also pointed out "Other Races of man" who where obviously compatible with humanity, or do you simply ignore or object to noah's narrative?

he created everything male and female. i do not understand the point. even chromosomes are considered to be gender specific.

my theory says he did. or at least allows for science to remain legitimate and not challenge one's faith.

here's the dig.. Jesus references the creation account as a real legit thing. If science proves Jesus wrong how then can he be God?

If we loose creation all is at risk (to fresh young 'open' minds) you know the entire future of the church
again Science demands a new set of understanding and rules for each generation. This theory is adaptable to anything science has to say. no matter how it changes this all still works. Meaning on can have his faith and science too.

What is taught in our public school systems is macro evolution and that is NOT compatible with the Lords word.

Macro evolution - major evolutionary change (outside of a species). The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

Micro evolution is compatible with the Lords word.

Micro evolution - evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

micro evolution - He made them after THEIR KIND. (within their species) such as we see today.

so example, you have cats and dogs .... different looking cats, different looking dogs (micro evolution), but dogs and cats do not inter-breed and produce off spring (that would be macro evolution)

Male & Female: How did male & female "evolve"? What evolutionary "processes" occurred making this possible? What evolution processes took place to provide for the XY/YY chromosomes etc. Are these evolution "processes" provable?

What evolution processes took place for life to become? Are they provable?

The "giants" ... if I understand correctly what you are putting forth, were a different type of human ... that is ... not out of the lineage from the creation of Adam & Eve, if so, that in itself dismisses the origin of mankind.

Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.

Although the Nephilim (and others) are described as being taller etc. that does not mean they were a different "type" of human. "Giants" is used to describe many different races (people groups) throughout the OT ... not just the Nephilim.

Deuteronomy 2:21
A people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the Lord destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place,

Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

When our son (grown now) was going to school, we made very certain that He understood what THEORY is and that neither evolution nor creation are 100% provable and both are theories. So, he was taught both and when He became mature ... He decided what He believes. Like many he believed in the evolution theory for a period of time ... and then chose God.

One can not reconcile MACRO evolution and creation ... and MACRO evolution is what is being taught in the public school systems. This is the point you seem to be missing or ignoring.

MACRO evolution theory and creation theory are incompatible. If one accepts micro evolution they are indeed compromising (making concessions) with their faith.

assimilate - cause (something) to resemble; liken.

keyword - cause

The "cause" (as being discussed herein) is either macro evolution or creation.

As far as the Lords church (the body of believers that transcends any one church system), there will be a remnant

Over the course of history believers have been threatened (and is continuous) and in many cases severely diminished however the Lord has always kept a remnant through which His message of salvation goes forth. His church no matter how small will move forward until His return.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

New Living Translation
History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.

Romans 11:5

English Standard Version
5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

Again, the public school system is teaching MACRO evolution.

Faith - Faith in God as creator (theory) or faith in the scientific theories of man.

Either take faith to believe.

 

[Brightmoon]

What is taught in our public school systems is macro evolution and that is NOT compatible with the Lords word.

Macro evolution - major evolutionary change (outside of a species). The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

Micro evolution is compatible with the Lords word.

Micro evolution - evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

micro evolution - He made them after THEIR KIND. (within their species) such as we see today.

so example, you have cats and dogs .... different looking cats, different looking dogs (micro evolution), but dogs and cats do not inter-breed and produce off spring (that would be macro evolution)

Male & Female: How did male & female "evolve"? What evolutionary "processes" occurred making this possible? What evolution processes took place to provide for the XY/YY chromosomes etc. Are these evolution "processes" provable?

What evolution processes took place for life to become? Are they provable?

The "giants" ... if I understand correctly what you are putting forth, were a different type of human ... that is ... not out of the lineage from the creation of Adam & Eve, if so, that in itself dismisses the origin of mankind.

Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.

Although the Nephilim (and others) are described as being taller etc. that does not mean they were a different "type" of human. "Giants" is used to describe many different races (people groups) throughout the OT ... not just the Nephilim.

Deuteronomy 2:21
A people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the Lord destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place,

Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

When our son (grown now) was going to school, we made very certain that He understood what THEORY is and that neither evolution nor creation are 100% provable and both are theories. So, he was taught both and when He became mature ... He decided what He believes. Like many he believed in the evolution theory for a period of time ... and then chose God.

One can not reconcile MACRO evolution and creation ... and MACRO evolution is what is being taught in the public school systems. This is the point you seem to be missing or ignoring.

MACRO evolution theory and creation theory are incompatible. If one accepts micro evolution they are indeed compromising (making concessions) with their faith.

assimilate - cause (something) to resemble; liken.

keyword - cause

The "cause" (as being discussed herein) is either macro evolution or creation.

As far as the Lords church (the body of believers that transcends any one church system), there will be a remnant

Over the course of history believers have been threatened (and is continuous) and in many cases severely diminished however the Lord has always kept a remnant through which His message of salvation goes forth. His church no matter how small will move forward until His return.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

New Living Translation
History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.

Romans 11:5

English Standard Version
5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

Again, the public school system is teaching MACRO evolution.

Faith - Faith in God as creator (theory) or faith in the scientific theories of man.

Either take faith to believe.

. Nice essay the only problem is that scientists don’t use misleading creationist definitions of scientific terminology. Macroevolution is speciation. once you get a different species it’s macroevolution. Lions and Tigers are both in the same genus Panthera and the hybrids between the two while sterile are healthy This is macroevolution . The fact that they are able to produce hybrids means that once , long ago, they were a single species . They’ve since radiated into several different species . That is macroevolution . If you mean the type of splitting that separates the Artiodactyla into different animal families and orders , that is also macroevolution - hippos ,whales ,giraffes cattle ,swine, antelopes etc are all closely related Artiodactyla