Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

myst33 said:

If you just say its your belief, no.

But when you will start to "scientifically" explain Genesis like you do ("God removed the light source..."), ignoring various discoveries of science, then you are being ignorant, scientifically.

You will also be ignorant theologically, not understanding the cultural and historical context of the text you read.

Click to expand...

The context of the Gospel is the history in Genesis. That's the context that influenced Moses and the Gospel writers. And much of that history is revealed as miraculous, so, science, in many ways, is irrelevant. Science can't extrapolate accurate history, if history includes miracles.

ExTiff said:

You clearly have neither studied nor understood them then.

Ch.1 Has Light created on the first day. Then day 2 we get the firmament (a Dome) between heaven and earth.

Click to expand...

This in incorrect. The Firmament or Expanse is the thing that is named Heaven.


That's very straightforward. Heaven is not a dome, it's a spacious realm. We have hundreds of references to it in the OT. The rayqia is one of the few things God named so that we'd never be confused about what it is. It is, indeed, the heavens. This article will be helpful for this topic: Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?

ExTiff said:

....The text is clear, when man was made there were no plants or herbs, no rain and no one to till the ground....

Click to expand...

You've haven't researched this enough. "Plants of the field" is a reference to gardens and crops in the Bible. Plants existed before man (created day 3), but gardens didn't until until day 6 when God made the first garden for man.

This article will clear this up for you quite thoroughly. Plant Creation Contradiction in Genesis? Plants of the field is a term used often throughout the OT. It's a clear reference to cultivated plants which required a man to cultivate them. That's why the Genesis account says,


Wild plants do not require a man to till the ground. Thus this cannot be a reference to plants in general. It's crystal clear if you're willing to look into it. The article above will answer any doubts you might have. Tim Keller peddles this argument, but it's easily dismantled, if you're willing to look at the textual evidence.

JacksBratt said:

If the creation account is correct.. they could not have been written more than a thousand or so years later... Not hundreds of thousands..... That is pure hyperbole....

Click to expand...

"hundreds to thousands" meaning minimum hundreds, maximum thousands.

The flood to Moses (who penned Genesis) is about 1000 years (hundreds) and creation to Moses is about 3500 years (thousands)

there is no hyperbole.

it's a long time any way you shake it from the time they happened to the time they are penned.

Calminian said:

Actually, the Genesis account predates Moses and Egypt. In fact, it documents the founder of Egypt, Mizraim (Gen. 10). None of the events documented in Genesis were during Moses lifetime. He was, in essence, a historian when he wrote Genesis, gathering the story from preexisting documents that had to be older than both Moses and Mizriam. Thus, there's no reason to conclude Genesis was influenced by Egyptian myth. Here's a helpful article on this: The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery

In fact, there's one key difference between Genesis and all creation myth. Genesis records the creation of formless material (Gen. 1:2). You don't see that in other mythological accounts. They normally start with the chaos, but Genesis reveals material creation in the first 2 verses and then goes on to describe the organization.

Click to expand...

the Hebrews were a nomadic oral people. what they had, they had in story not in written form. Their experiences in Egypt they would have had no leader, no priest, no temple, no written scripture, all they would have is the accounts passed down from them from their parents, grandparents, great grandparents...

The most accurate accounts would be those accounts unique to them such as when Abraham comes into the picture. These accounts would have great importance to them so they would strongly be valued to be perserved and passed down carefully. There is no reason to think these accounts may have had outside influence because "outsiders" wouldn't care about these details and they wouldn't have competing accounts.

when it comes to some of the major events pre-abraham such as bable, the flood and creation there is going to be wide overlap with competing cultures around them, most dominantly Egyptian. unlike the Hebrews, the Egyptians had a very advanced system with writings, priest, scripture, leadership, etc... all of which the Hebrews would be lacking in and they also had a strong influence over the Hebrews. As soon as they enter the desert what do the Hebrews do? their high priest Aaron of the monotheistic God and creator of all things makes a golden calf and they worship it.

This is not a people who have a strong identity with God.

I'm sure they had many competing accounts from family to family and I'm sure many were very paganized. Moses could compile these accounts and de-paganize them so that they point to God under divine authority. This is call contextualization or a more missional term is redemptive analogies. It's not about literal details in the exact order they appear, it's about using those details to point to God which is far more important.

DamianWarS said:

"hundreds to thousands" meaning minimum hundreds, maximum thousands.

The flood to Moses (who penned Genesis) is about 1000 years (hundreds) and creation to Moses is about 3500 years (thousands)

there is no hyperbole.

it's a long time any way you shake it from the time they happened to the time they are penned.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I read that incorrectly. However, I believe things happened the way my Grandfather told me.. and I can tell my grandchildren... with little or no lost accuracy.

This is the same as Adam, telling Methuselah who told Seth who told Abraham...

The time compression is huge.... We tend to think of it in our life ages and generation lengths..

If it is canon, it is God's word. And, there is no room for the whole "well it happened a long time before it was recorded" view.

Also, God spoke directly to Moses and Moses wrote most of this history...

I have a huge problem with people who think that God could not have done it the way it was written... and still call themselves believers..

I also believe that if God can do it.... and told us that He did it.... then we who are believers in this view will be the ones found correct when all is revealed.

Don't forget that the writing of the scripture into manuscripts for the bible, is some of the shortest in time spans of all the respected literature of notability.. Not only is it the shortest time from event to recording.. but the number of transcripts of the events is much more numerous than some of the other works that mankind considers to be great.

DamianWarS said:

the Hebrews were a nomadic oral people. what they had, they had in story not in written form. Their experiences in Egypt they would have had no leader, no priest, no temple, no written scripture, all they would have is the accounts passed down from them from their parents, grandparents, great grandparents........

Click to expand...

This is quite an outdated belief even among secular archaeologists. At the turn of the 20th century, more than a hundred years ago, thousands of tablets have been excavated proving man has been writing as long they've been building camps and villages.

Biblically, we know man was given language and writing from the beginning. Genesis 5 contains the word "book", even before the flood took place.


Literally, this reads, "this [is] the book of the accounts of Adam." There is no question Moses had access to these ancient books and used them to put the book of Genesis together. Even documentary hypothesis advocates have backed off the idea that writing emerged later after Abraham and Moses. They can't ignore archaeology.

Jonathan Walkerin said: ↑
Of course. People lie. So what was the reason for this grand conspiracy ?

Danielwright2311 said:

To get rid of God and religion.

Click to expand...

Since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things, you're going to have to come up with a better story than that.

JacksBratt said:

....I have a huge problem with people who think that God could not have done it the way it was written... and still call themselves believers......

Click to expand...

And this really is the issue, and the crisis the Church faces today. We tell our kids to trust Scripture while simultaneously tacitly admitting to them we really don't believe the beginning of the story and make all kinds of excuses for it. It's no wonder 4 out of 5 are not seeing the point, and leaving the church.

The Barbarian said:

Jonathan Walkerin said: ↑
Of course. People lie. So what was the reason for this grand conspiracy ?



Since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things, you're going to have to come up with a better story than that.

Click to expand...

Did he? My understanding is the Darwin believed everything can from a single living thing.

Calminian said:

Did he? My understanding is the Darwin believed everything can from a single living thing.

Click to expand...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1879

The Barbarian said:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1879

Click to expand...

There you go. Few or one and his theory clearly advocates common ancestry for all. It's the tree of life theory which clearly goes against the orchard of life view the Bible presents. There's a clear difference.

Calminian said:

The context of the Gospel is the history in Genesis. That's the context that influenced Moses and the Gospel writers. And much of that history is revealed as miraculous, so, science, in many ways, is irrelevant. Science can't extrapolate accurate history, if history includes miracles.

Click to expand...

And Genesis cannot substitute science, because authors of Genesis were not scientific.

Calminian said:

There you go. Few or one and his theory clearly advocates common ancestry for all.

Click to expand...

Or a few common ancestors for different kinds of living things. He didn't know which. It wasn't until we understood genetics and DNA that it became clear that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

It's the tree of life theory which clearly goes against the orchard of life view the Bible presents.

Click to expand...

That isn't what the Bible presents. It doesn't say one way or the other. The difference is, that the Bible presents one story, and YE creationism presents an imaginative revision of the Bible.

There's a clear difference.

Click to expand...

Yep.

JacksBratt said:

Sorry, I read that incorrectly. However, I believe things happened the way my Grandfather told me.. and I can tell my grandchildren... with little or no lost accuracy.

This is the same as Adam, telling Methuselah who told Seth who told Abraham...

The time compression is huge.... We tend to think of it in our life ages and generation lengths..

If it is canon, it is God's word. And, there is no room for the whole "well it happened a long time before it was recorded" view.

Also, God spoke directly to Moses and Moses wrote most of this history...

I have a huge problem with people who think that God could not have done it the way it was written... and still call themselves believers..

I also believe that if God can do it.... and told us that He did it.... then we who are believers in this view will be the ones found correct when all is revealed.

Click to expand...

Do you recall an event in your family history passed orally and not written that happened 1000 years ago, how about 3500 years ago? The accounts passed on from generation to generation is how the Hebrews kept history, this is true, which is why their story starting from Abraham (300+ yrs) is going to have high accuracy and this is also why when Abraham comes into the picture there is an explosion of detail, there would also be no competing accounts to these events in surrounding cultures, because no one cared about them. However the accounts before Abraham just get older and older with many competing accounts from surrounding cultures and I would suspect their version of them post-exodus high paganized.

The Barbarian said:

Jonathan Walkerin said: ↑
Of course. People lie. So what was the reason for this grand conspiracy ?



Since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things, you're going to have to come up with a better story than that.

Click to expand...

Its not Darwin I'm debating, now if it was him, then so be it.

I do not follow Darwin in any way, I follow Jesus.

Danielwright2311 said:

Its not Darwin I'm debating, now if it was him, then so be it.

Click to expand...

Just pointing out that if you actually knew what it was you were fighting, you'd probably be more effective.

I do not follow Darwin in any way, I follow Jesus.

Click to expand...

If you follow Him, why not just accept it His way?

The Barbarian said:

Just pointing out that if you actually knew what it was you were fighting, you'd probably be more effective.



If you follow Him, why not just accept it His way?

Click to expand...

Why would i except his way?

I do not follow this word and its views.

Should I follow every ones views? And if i did, I could not follow any one as i would offend one and hold true to another at one time, then follow the other at the time its needed, this holds no value in real life.

myst33 said:

And Genesis cannot substitute science, because authors of Genesis were not scientific.

Click to expand...

They weren't, but science really isn't the issue. The issue is history and whether or not Genesis is accurate history and did the writer intend to covey accurate history? Every implication, from the book itself, to the rest of the Old and New Testaments is that it indeed was and the author did.