A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

[Gbob]

Hi 57, You wrote in one post: "I still fail to see the point. God did it or directly caused it. What ever the process was it took less than 1 day. "

It was created on one day IF and only IF you already assume Genesis 1 is a set of 24 hour days. I don't hold that assumption. I believe Genesis 1 is the planning stage for the future creation of the universe. The clue that we are not dealing in normal days is the lack of sun in the first 3 days. That my friend is in the bible--sun wasn't created for a few days.

Yes, God caused it, but the Earth DID it. Like setting up one of those domino chains, you might cause all of them to tumble if you push one, but the rest fall because of the previous domino--in otherwords, the dominoes knock down all dominoes except the first domino. That is how I view that God did evolution.

In a second note you wrote:"You seem to be avoiding origin sin. Did the fall happen like Genesis says or some other way? "

I believe the Fall happened exactly as described to the first pair, so don't claim that my view of evolution wouldn't have a first pair. I went to a lot of work to figure out how to have a first pair in my view. So I am NOT avoiding original sin.

Each brought forth only took 24 hours if one already agrees that the days are normal 24 hours. I don't agree with that for the reason above. I think your objection is that there was light. Light isn't the sun.

In a final note your suggest that Genesis 1 isn't presented as planning. It is if you look at the grammar closely. God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so". God said "Let there be light" Someone else, the human writer said "and it was so" God didn't say that phrase. I remember as a child watching Walt Disney's TV show when he was describing how he planned for Disney Land. He actually as I recall said, Let's put Frontier land over there, let's put Future land there... Disneyland had not yet been built. Walt Disney was planning his place. No one at that time could say of Disney's plan 'and it was so" But now we can say "and it was so" Same thing with Genesis.

The advantage of this approach is that it gets us out of the problem of order of events in Genesis 1 which don't match geology. this is a big stick atheists use to convince people that the Bible is full of falsehoods. I for one, don't want to leave them that club.

 

[Gbob]

Hi 57, You wrote in one post: "I still fail to see the point. God did it or directly caused it. What ever the process was it took less than 1 day. "

It was created on one day IF and only IF you already assume Genesis 1 is a set of 24 hour days. I don't hold that assumption. I believe Genesis 1 is the planning stage for the future creation of the universe. The clue that we are not dealing in normal days is the lack of sun in the first 3 days. That my friend is in the bible--sun wasn't created for a few days.

Yes, God caused it, but the Earth DID it. Like setting up one of those domino chains, you might cause all of them to tumble if you push one, but the rest fall because of the previous domino--in otherwords, the dominoes knock down all dominoes except the first domino. That is how I view that God did evolution.

In a second note you wrote:"You seem to be avoiding origin sin. Did the fall happen like Genesis says or some other way? "

I believe the Fall happened exactly as described to the first pair, so don't claim that my view of evolution wouldn't have a first pair. I went to a lot of work to figure out how to have a first pair in my view. So I am NOT avoiding original sin.

Each brought forth only took 24 hours if one already agrees that the days are normal 24 hours. I don't agree with that for the reason above. I think your objection is that there was light. Light isn't the sun.

In a final note your suggest that Genesis 1 isn't presented as planning. It is if you look at the grammar closely. God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so". God said "Let there be light" Someone else, the human writer said "and it was so" God didn't say that phrase. I remember as a child watching Walt Disney's TV show when he was describing how he planned for Disney Land. He actually as I recall said, Let's put Frontier land over there, let's put Future land there... Disneyland had not yet been built. Walt Disney was planning his place. No one at that time could say of Disney's plan 'and it was so" But now we can say "and it was so" Same thing with Genesis.

The advantage of this approach is that it gets us out of the problem of order of events in Genesis 1 which don't match geology. this is a big stick atheists use to convince people that the Bible is full of falsehoods. I for one, don't want to leave them that club.

 

[Jamsie]

I still fail to see the point. God did it or directly caused it. What ever the process was it took less than 1 day.

Yes, God commanded the land/water to bring forth or produce...you assume immediate based on what is clearly explanatory. Why doesn't the account simply say "And God said, Let there be vegetation... or living creatures"? The fiat is to existing material to produce... that is quite plain.

 

[Jamsie]

Each brought forth took less than 24 hours.

Why is that necessarily so? It is quite plain that the commands or fiats were the sole operative agency for creation, I believe we would agree on that. So what each day represents are command(s) directed at existing created material, subscribing to 24 hour days would simply be affirming the fiats as given on a particular day. As noted if the fiats/commands were all sufficient then clearly what follows would be explanatory - thus, "God made" would be predicated on the command, and "How" would be answered by he commanded the Land/Water to produce.

Again, if it was meant to clearly state immediacy then it could easily have been worded as previously noted..."And God said, Let there be vegetation"...or "Let there be living creatures". However, it is evident that immediacy is not so worded but rather a mediate pronouncement ..."Let the land produce". Looking back with what we now know it is reasoned to infer that in fact "bring forth" or "produce" strongly suggest processes.

 

[dad]

Genesis 1 self evidently was never written to be taken literally. The clue is in given in that sun and moon weren’t created until “day” 4. So what defined the “days” until then? In ancient times days were defined by the sun rising and setting.

Your 'ancient days' are long after the first days of creation. Naturaly men used what God had set up to mark days and nights by then.

They didn’t have clocks. So you can’t take Genesis 1 as literal and also read it as literal 24 hour days of creation. The God-breathed language won’t let you do that. Genesis 1 appears to be written as a timeless picture for all ages.

Not true. Having light on earth in no way depends on the sun when God is involved as we see in the New Jerusalem where the sun is not needed at all.

 

[dad]

Yes, God commanded the land/water to bring forth or produce...you assume immediate based on what is clearly explanatory.

Unless you think man and fish and animals did not eat for millions of years, of course the plants He created for our food produced food very fast.

 

[-57]

Hi 57, You wrote in one post: "I still fail to see the point. God did it or directly caused it. What ever the process was it took less than 1 day. "

I still stand by that.

It was created on one day IF and only IF you already assume Genesis 1 is a set of 24 hour days. I don't hold that assumption. I believe Genesis 1 is the planning stage for the future creation of the universe. The clue that we are not dealing in normal days is the lack of sun in the first 3 days. That my friend is in the bible--sun wasn't created for a few days.

The language and presentation of the language neatly fits into a 24 hour long day. Morning and evening are used as well as the days are numbered.

The clue you seem to be avoiding has been there all along."And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" You just can't insert a long time period in-between saying let there be light-------------and there was light. God spoke it and it happened. That's the simple reading of the verse.

As to what the "light" was, well, there are several theories. You're the first I've heard of who called it a plan for a future creation.

Rev 21:23 presents what I believe the light to be. " 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp."

Yes, God caused it, but the Earth DID it. Like setting up one of those domino chains, you might cause all of them to tumble if you push one, but the rest fall because of the previous domino--in otherwords, the dominoes knock down all dominoes except the first domino. That is how I view that God did evolution.

But someone had to set up the domino's.

I see it like this. Remember Jonah?
Jonah 4:6 So the LORD God appointed a vine, and it grew up to provide shade over Jonah’s head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was greatly pleased with the plant.

It grew pretty fast...10 But the LORD said, “You cared about the plant, which you neither tended nor made grow. It sprang up in a night and perished in a night.

It's easy to believe the plants created on day 3 grew in a similar fashion.

In a second note you wrote:"You seem to be avoiding origin sin. Did the fall happen like Genesis says or some other way? "

I have never received an adequate answer to that question. We'll have to see how you do.

I believe the Fall happened exactly as described to the first pair, so don't claim that my view of evolution wouldn't have a first pair. I went to a lot of work to figure out how to have a first pair in my view. So I am NOT avoiding original sin.

In your link you said humans evolved. How can you have a first pair? Your first pair would have had parents. They would have been a pair prior to Adam and Eve. It becomes obvious you will now have to define first pair. I'm waiting to see your view.

Each brought forth only took 24 hours if one already agrees that the days are normal 24 hours. I don't agree with that for the reason above. I think your objection is that there was light. Light isn't the sun.

I've presented what I believe the light was above.

In a final note your suggest that Genesis 1 isn't presented as planning. It is if you look at the grammar closely. God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so". God said "Let there be light" Someone else, the human writer said "and it was so" God didn't say that phrase. I remember as a child watching Walt Disney's TV show when he was describing how he planned for Disney Land. He actually as I recall said, Let's put Frontier land over there, let's put Future land there... Disneyland had not yet been built. Walt Disney was planning his place. No one at that time could say of Disney's plan 'and it was so" But now we can say "and it was so" Same thing with Genesis.

What version are you using?
Here's about 25 versions and none of them phrase it the way you did.

The advantage of this approach is that it gets us out of the problem of order of events in Genesis 1 which don't match geology. this is a big stick atheists use to convince people that the Bible is full of falsehoods. I for one, don't want to leave them that club.

Creation was a miracle. The Bible is full of miracles. Atheist don't believe in any of them.

What you seem to. have forgotten is that the geological record was laid down by the flood of Noah.

 

[-57]

Yes, God commanded the land/water to bring forth or produce...you assume immediate based on what is clearly explanatory. Why doesn't the account simply say "And God said, Let there be vegetation... or living creatures"? The fiat is to existing material to produce... that is quite plain.

I just presented this to Gbob

I see it like this. Remember Jonah?
Jonah 4:6 So the LORD God appointed a vine, and it grew up to provide shade over Jonah’s head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was greatly pleased with the plant.

It grew pretty fast...10 But the LORD said, “You cared about the plant, which you neither tended nor made grow. It sprang up in a night and perished in a night.

It's easy to believe the plants created on day 3 grew in a similar fashion.

 

[Jamsie]

I just presented this to Gbob

I see it like this. Remember Jonah?
Jonah 4:6 So the LORD God appointed a vine, and it grew up to provide shade over Jonah’s head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was greatly pleased with the plant.

It grew pretty fast...10 But the LORD said, “You cared about the plant, which you neither tended nor made grow. It sprang up in a night and perished in a night.

It's easy to believe the plants created on day 3 grew in a similar fashion.

I don't believe such demonstrates anything other then God can choose to intervene as he sees fit. Would you suggest that donkeys at one time could talk as in Numbers 28? There are myriad examples of God intervene at particular times and circumstance... you believe such exceptions are the rule? We know very well that they are not...

 

[-57]

Why is that necessarily so? It is quite plain that the commands or fiats were the sole operative agency for creation, I believe we would agree on that. So what each day represents are command(s) directed at existing created material, subscribing to 24 hour days would simply be affirming the fiats as given on a particular day. As noted if the fiats/commands were all sufficient then clearly what follows would be explanatory - thus, "God made" would be predicated on the command, and "How" would be answered by he commanded the Land/Water to produce.

Again, if it was meant to clearly state immediacy then it could easily have been worded as previously noted..."And God said, Let there be vegetation"...or "Let there be living creatures". However, it is evident that immediacy is not so worded but rather a mediate pronouncement ..."Let the land produce". Looking back with what we now know it is reasoned to infer that in fact "bring forth" or "produce" strongly suggest processes.

Keep reading....And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 2:19 sys it this way....Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

 

[Jamsie]

Unless you think man and fish and animals did not eat for millions of years, of course the plants He created for our food produced food very fast.

Just how fast does the Bible state? As I read and understand Genesis there is no problem...weren't the plants and trees prior to animals and humans?

 

[Jamsie]

Keep reading....And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 2:19 sys it this way....Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

This was already addressed in a previous post. Are you suggesting that when God spoke it was insufficient? Are you suggesting that God "formed" each and every creature? Or should it be read with "And God said,...." followed by "And it was so". What does "...it was so." mean?

 

[-57]

I don't believe such demonstrates anything other then God can choose to intervene as he sees fit. Would you suggest that donkeys at one time could talk as in Numbers 28? There are myriad examples of God intervene at particular times and circumstance... you believe such exceptions are the rule? We know very well that they are not...

No, I don't believe donkeys could talk. Yes, God did intervene. God opened the mouth of the donkey. 28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam,"

God also intervened and made the plants and animals.

 

[Jamsie]

No, I don't believe donkeys could talk. Yes, God did intervene. God opened the mouth of the donkey. 28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam,"

God also intervened and made the plants and animals.

No, he didn't intervene he created - any interventions would be post-creation. Genesis says how, commanding the Land/Water to bring forth or produce. That is a plain reading of Genesis.

 

[-57]

This was already addressed in a previous post. Are you suggesting that when God spoke it was insufficient? Are you suggesting that God "formed" each and every creature? Or should it be read with "And God said,...." followed by "And it was so". What does "...it was so." mean?

Are you saying God could not form all the different kinds of animals at the same time?

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field

Yes, the Bible says God formed the animals on day 6.

 

[-57]

No, he didn't intervene he created - any interventions would be post-creation. Genesis says how, commanding the Land/Water to bring forth or produce. That is a plain reading of Genesis.

Now you're playing with words.

Did God create or intervene when He formed Eve from Adams rib?

 

[Jamsie]

Now you're playing with words.

Did God create or intervene when He formed Eve from Adams rib?

How is intervene as opposed to creation playing with words? Are intervene and creation synonyms? "Male and Female"...Genesis 1:27, seems clear? Is Genesis 2:21-22 explanatory in light of Genesis 1:27?

 

[Jamsie]

Are you saying God could not form all the different kinds of animals at the same time?

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field

Yes, the Bible says God formed the animals on day 6.

I'm saying that God spoke... (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) so again, was God's command(s) insufficient? If God by fiat to the ground instructed the Land to produce would not the ground be subservient to God's command? Does it not make reasonable sense that all of creation was imbued (or however you choose to term it) and set in motion at the beginning so that all of the "laws" for the powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?

 

[-57]

How is intervene as opposed to creation playing with words? Are intervene and creation synonyms? "Male and Female"...Genesis 1:27, seems clear? Is Genesis 2:21-22 explanatory in light of Genesis 1:27?

I presented a vine that God caused to grow quickly.....you tried to disqualify it by calling it an intervention.
There is no reason to think God could not have created all the plants in one day like Genesis says.

 

[-57]

I'm saying that God spoke... (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) so again, was God's command(s) insufficient? If God by fiat to the ground instructed the Land to produce would not the ground be subservient to God's command? Does it not make reasonable sense that all of creation was imbued (or however you choose to term it) and set in motion at the beginning so that all of the "laws" for the powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?

Not all of creation was ex-nihilo