Sorry, that's wrong. How could it be? He made evolution.
God did not make evolution. Show me in the text of Genesis where it reports God made evolution, whether you believe it or not, the author's intent of the text was to report how God created the universe. There is no evolution there unless you read it into it.
So I understand you believe Genesis and the Bible as a whole chimes with Evolution, but it doesn't.
If so, it's hard to explain that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. You've been lied to about that.
Darwin did not attribute the origin of life to God. What book did he do this in? Yes, I know the story that he went to school to be a priest, but recent information has come out with greater details into his family that show Darwin was raised a Unitarian at least, or an atheist at most. And yes, I'm aware people who raise Darwin to great heights do not agree with this information.
There are a lot of people throughout history who pay lip service to God but are not believers to help you understand where I'm going with this.
If you did, you'd trust Him enough to take Genesis as it is, rather than the modern revisions of creationists.
You amuse me here? Creationism started long before the YEC movement. Before Darwin, nearly all readers and commentators on the Bible held a YEC view of the world or at least testified that's how Genesis implied it.
There were a few who broke away, but that's about it. The current Jewish calendar, despite not being perfectly accurate, is an indicator as well that the original intent was that God created in six days, etc.
No sir, the ones who are trying to revise Genesis are individuals like yourself.
And yet you seem to accept man's modern revisions to God's word.
Evolution came about in the 19th century. You choose to read that into the Bible and you accuse people who take Genesis for what it says as revisionists? Seriously?
They are when they conflict with the plain reading of the text.
I'm confused about your consistency here. You want to say coming up with reasons for contradictions are in conflict with the plain reading of the text and yet you read Evolution into the Bible? Seriously?
Why not toss some of them out, and we'll look at the evidence for those? Let's see how they hold up with reality.
Why? The point is that you believe the "just so stories" to explain them away. Like iron somehow sustaining soft tissue for millions of years.
When you say it says "Joseph", but really means "Mary", that doesn't fit very well, does it?
I said it says Joseph because women weren't used as the main source of a genealogical lineage during those times. <<<<See how that includes historical data to make more sense of the problem rather than just tossing it aside due to bullheadedness and an inconsistent position on the plain reading of the text at that.
So they had no concept of history as we look at it. And they used mythic structures to expound on what is true. For example, they just deleted some kings from those genealogies because they were considered to be poor examples.
Mythic does not mean false by the way. A common misconception, but I get what you think you're trying to prove.
Yes, some ancients had a concept of history like the Egyptians who made up stuff. Yet, you still see historians and Egyptologists today using Egyptian history like its the cream of the crop proof of everything.
But your own statement disproves the notion that we should automatically be suspicious of their concept of history because your statement already shows that we know that they did that and we know why they did that. Guess why? Because we investigated more about the historical and cultural atmosphere and found out why and what they did.
Oh, but let's not do that for the genealogies in the Gospel, that's right, let's not do that.
Such as YE creationism. It's no older than the 20th century.
The following quotes predate 20th century. The point of them is to show that the concept of embracing what the Bible said about a six-day creation was there despite whatever other interpretations the following individuals put on the text.
Some equated 1,000 years to a day and thus read that into the text. The point is that they believed the world and universe would only last 6,000 years because of it and believed the world and universe was created in six days as a sign. Let me reemphasize this, the point is not that they wrongly interpreted a thousand years as a day and believed the Earth would only last a thousand years, but they saw that the Universe was only created in a YEC, a six-24-hour-creation belief. Thus, YEC did not pop into existence in the 20th century. Emphasis mine::
"And there was evening and there was morning: one day.’ And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say ‘one day the first day’? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series?
If it therefore says ‘one day’, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night."
Basil, the Cappadocian in the Hexaemeron, circa 370 AD.
"Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression,
‘He finished in six days.’ This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, ‘Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years.’ Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. ‘And He rested on the seventh day.”
The Epistle of Barnabas, circa 70-100 AD
“
For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years’ is connected with this subject.”
Justin Martyr, circa 100-165 AD
"
All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days …For if even a chronological error has been committed by us, of, e.g., 50 or 100, or even 200 years, yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books.”
Bishop of Antioch, circa 169-177 AD
Plenty more where this came from up to Darwin. Yes, there were some who didn't, but this debunks the claim that YEC is a 20th-century creation. Do your homework on history.
Two original humans given immortal souls, who disobeyed God. Did you actually think evolution rules that out? No wonder you hate science. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.
This is a story you place on Evolution. It is not what is espoused by the theory, nor is it what's in the text of the Bible. So much for that plain reading of the text, eh?
No, I don't hate science. I spent some time working with computers and technology, but there is an obvious difference between operational science that can be observed and tested in the present and historical science that takes things observed and tested in the present and extrapolates those things to a time unobserved and untested and then people act like it's all absolute, unadulterated fact.
I have no problem with biology, geology, etc. But when you try to get me to believe you know for a fact, without question, what happened supposedly billions of years ago. Those all sound like 'just-so" stories to me without any true evidence backing them up because nobody was there to observe and test them.
And that's just the philosophy of the issue.
Look, I used to be an Old Earther until I stopped trying to force the Bible to say something it wasn't saying in the Book of Genesis. But then again you accuse me of not taking the book at its word, so?
But the Book of Genesis gives us a clear reason for sin and death in the world. Adam and Eve rebelled. Heck, New Testament authors quote and hint to it rather often, but I'm wondering if you take those hints or just hand-wave them away as silly ancient people believing in fables or something?
Properly, it's called "eisegesis." When you have to make up new stories to make the text fit your wishes, that's eisegesis.
No, a wrong understanding of eisegesis.
For example, do you know how much importance Second Temple Judaism has in understanding some of the arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees? See taking something like that, learning about what the Pharisees and Sadducees believed during that time and why Jesus responded to them this way or that way is what I'm talking about.
For instance, an easy example because it's in the Bible, the Sadducees were anti-supernaturalists, they did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or the existence of spirits. That's why they tried to trip Jesus up with that question in Mark 12:17-27.
Another example is understanding something like hyperbole as used in the Bible from its historical-cultural context:
Hyperbole: A Common Biblical Figure of Speech.
For example, when God says kill all the people over there and then, later on, you read that some of those people still live. That's the author using an example of hyperbole.
If you accept it at face value, you would not try to fit it into a literal history. Augustine's de Genesi ad Litteram is "the literal meaning of Genesis", meaning "what it actually means." And Augustine showed that the days of creation could not be periods of time, depending only on the text itself.
You're not making sense and Augustine was wrong on that. Despite that, Augustine generally held that the world was less than 6,000 years old:
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been …They are deceived, too, b
y those highly mendacious documents, which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. (
The City of God, XII:10).
Don't have to, if you just let it be as it is.
So if you let it be as it is and it says the universe and world was created in six days and you don't believe that's true? Hmmmm, you're being inconsistent, not making sense.
