A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

[Jamsie]

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.

There is very clearly distinction between intervene and creation... and it isn't playing with words, or would you suggest that God intervened rather than created. You are attempting to equate what obviously is two disparate accounts. The donkey illustration, among others that could be noted, shows this to have no relevance to the initial creation.

Further, so there is no reason to think that God couldn't have created everything in 1 day...such proves nothing. Where we disagree is what Genesis says... either "God said" was all sufficient or it wasn't? So you are saying that God spoke is insufficient because he had to form the animals … as I mentioned "formed" or "made" is explanatory, because in Genesis God spoke.

 

[Jamsie]

Not all of creation was ex-nihilo

Of course not, which is why Genesis states "And God said, let the land..." obvious the ground/land existed in order for it to produce.

 

[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]

​

 

[dad]

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?

3 days I think it was. They could not live millions of years before eating.

 

[-57]

There is very clearly distinction between intervene and creation... and it isn't playing with words, or would you suggest that God intervened rather than created. You are attempting to equate what obviously is two disparate accounts. The donkey illustration, among others that could be noted, shows this to have no relevance to the initial creation.

Further, so there is no reason to think that God couldn't have created everything in 1 day...such proves nothing. Where we disagree is what Genesis says... either "God said" was all sufficient or it wasn't? So you are saying that God spoke is insufficient because he had to form the animals … as I mentioned "formed" or "made" is explanatory, because in Genesis God spoke.

God could have done the creation in a millisecond. But He took six days and part of the reason is spelled out in the ten commandments.
I've even read he created the un and moon on day 4 to demonstrate His power over them.

What I do know is God didn't use evolutionism to create man...or anything.

 

[-57]

Of course not, which is why Genesis states "And God said, let the land..." obvious the ground/land existed in order for it to produce.

Same with the dust man was created from as well as the rib Eve was made from.

 

[-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. "

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.

Is this not a repeat?

I would love to hear how evolutionism and original sin fit together.

 

[Gbob]

What I do know is God didn't use evolutionism

Then we have little to discuss. God Bless

 

[-57]

Then we have little to discuss. God Bless

Creating Eve from Adams rib....certainly isn't evolutionism.

When the Bible says Eve is the mother of all....certainly isn't evolutionism.

Dismissing original sin....certainly isn't evolutionism.

 

[Jamsie]

God could have done the creation in a millisecond. But He took six days and part of the reason is spelled out in the ten commandments.
I've even read he created the un and moon on day 4 to demonstrate His power over them.

What I do know is God didn't use evolutionism to create man...or anything.

Yes, we agree that there were 6 days in which God spoke commands. The only thing spelled out in scripture is 6 days, no indication of time frame, no indication that the days were consecutive, no details as to the how, only that there were 6 days...and the specific detail of those days was quite simply "And God said,...". That is exactly all that we are told.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". So when was the earth created?

One can attempt evasion in dealing with the fact that God commands the Land/Water directly to produce life such as vegetation, living creatures, etc. but there is absolutely no statement such that "Let there be vegetation or living creatures"... why is that? How can one not see mediacy with no suggestion of immediacy?

The rage against science flies in the face of scripture especially Romans 1:20. The belief that Genesis 1 is somehow a scientific treatise is simply wrongheaded. Beyond the understanding and fact that God is the creator Genesis is quite open to interpretation, and the exclusion of science from any reasoned view is myopic and foolish.

 

[-57]

Yes, we agree that there were 6 days in which God spoke commands. The only thing spelled out in scripture is 6 days, no indication of time frame, no indication that the days were consecutive, no details as to the how, only that there were 6 days...and the specific detail of those days was quite simply "And God said,...". That is exactly all that we are told.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". So when was the earth created?

One can attempt evasion in dealing with the fact that God commands the Land/Water directly to produce life such as vegetation, living creatures, etc. but there is absolutely no statement such that "Let there be vegetation or living creatures"... why is that? How can one not see mediacy with no suggestion of immediacy?

The rage against science flies in the face of scripture especially Romans 1:20. The belief that Genesis 1 is somehow a scientific treatise is simply wrongheaded. Beyond the understanding and fact that God is the creator Genesis is quite open to interpretation, and the exclusion of science from any reasoned view is myopic and foolish.

There is NOTHING that indicates the days were not 24 hour long consecutive days.
You read Genesis to anyone, even a 5th grader, and they get 24 hour long, consecutive days.

But there are a few who have fallen for the lie called evolutionism who now must force fit evolutionism into Genesis.

In doing so they lose the concept of original sin...as they can't explain why we sin.

 

[Jamsie]

Creating Eve from Adams rib....certainly isn't evolutionism.
When the Bible says Eve is the mother of all....certainly isn't evolutionism.
Dismissing original sin....certainly isn't evolutionism.

I asked this in a previous post - "Male and Female"...Genesis 1:27, seems clear? Is Genesis 2:21-22 explanatory in light of Genesis 1:27?

Please explain the unfolding of events on the sixth day in light of 24 hours?

 

[Jamsie]

There is NOTHING that indicates the days were not 24 hour long consecutive days.
You read Genesis to anyone, even a 5th grader, and they get 24 hour long, consecutive days.

This was clearly explained to you but you seem intent on denying that "God said" is the sole operative agency of creation. You also won't address that a plain reading is one of mediacy not immediacy.

But there are a few who have fallen for the lie called evolutionism who now must force fit evolutionism into Genesis.

In doing so they lose the concept of original sin...as they can't explain why we sin.

There are a few who have fallen for reading Genesis by avoiding what is clearly written...and if shown to and explained then a 5th grader would most likely understand a valid different perspective. Where has the original sin been lost? Please show me where I exactly denied the concept of original sin through Adam?

 

[-57]

I asked this in a previous post - "Male and Female"...Genesis 1:27, seems clear? Is Genesis 2:21-22 explanatory in light of Genesis 1:27?

Please explain the unfolding of events on the sixth day in light of 24 hours?

Where is your problem?

 

[-57]

This was clearly explained to you but you seem intent on denying that "God said" is the sole operative agency of creation. You also won't address that a plain reading is one of mediacy not immediacy.

Now you're grasping. I said everything wasn't created ex-nihilo

There are a few who have fallen for reading Genesis by avoiding what is clearly written...and if shown to and explained then a 5th grader would most likely understand a valid different perspective. Where has the original sin been lost? Please show me where I exactly denied the concept of original sin through Adam?

Orginal sin is lost when evolution is read in between the lines.

Perhaps you would like to explain how evolution allows for original sin?

 

[Jamsie]

Where is your problem?

A simple question, why is that a problem...you ask questions don't you? If you can't answer them that is fine none of us has all of the answers. It is simply a question regarding the events that took place on day 6, and prior to Eve.

As to the 5th grader consider that he would come to the following conclusions; God formed therefore he must have hands, God walked (Gen. 3:8) so he has legs, and God is not omniscient because in Gen. 3:9 God didn't know where Adam was and had call out.

The overarching point is that a certain humility and openness should be required to any thoughts on Genesis/Creation. That reasoned people can arrive at differing thoughts on the various issues related in Genesis 1 inform us that there is no absolute certainty but only opinion and considered interpretation involved. The person that would suggest absolute certainty on this is merely fooling themselves, and given more to arrogance than to scholarly authority.

 

[Jamsie]

Now you're grasping. I said everything wasn't created ex-nihilo

OK, therefore God used mediate creation...thank you.

Orginal sin is lost when evolution is read in between the lines. Perhaps you would like to explain how evolution allows for original sin?

Orginal sin is lost when evolution is read in between the lines. Perhaps you would like to explain how evolution allows for original sin?​

You would need to explain exactly how original sin is lost? Again, there is much left out of the account... the problem is that you believe that God's use of a creative process, evolution, excludes everything...it does not, that is simply a ploy without foundation.

At some point those with such a narrow view will need to confess that creation is a mystery in terms of incontrovertible detail. We know this "In the beginning GOD...", the rest is quite open to opinion....

 

[Gbob]

Is this not a repeat?

I would love to hear how evolutionism and original sin fit together.

I don't think your would enjoy that. But here is where it is explained. I do believe Eve was created from Adam's rib. The Migrant Mind: The Creation of Man: How Man Can Be Evolved and Specially Created at the Same Time

 

[-57]

I don't think your would enjoy that. But here is where it is explained. I do believe Eve was created from Adam's rib. The Migrant Mind: The Creation of Man: How Man Can Be Evolved and Specially Created at the Same Time

You're article said
" "Because of these three facts, there is only one explanation which allows for the incorporation of the data into a biblical perspective. Five and a half million years ago, an ape-like creature gave birth to a child that had a grievous genetic defect. This child had 46 chromosomes rather than the normal 48 of her species. The child was born dead. God took pity on this creature, fixed the defect and breathed life into it. This was Adam."
"Adam did not know how to talk. His biological mother didn't either. Thus, God brought all the animals to Adam and let him name them. Whatever Adam named the creatures was what they were called. But among all the animals, no mate was found for him. He had 46 chromosomes and all of his relatives had 48. Because of this, he was a lone creature on this earth with no ability to reproduce. While a chromosomal fusion is not necessarily a barrier to reproduction, it often is. Following Adam's recognition that there was no mate for him, God caused a deep sleep to come on Adam and removed a rib. From this rib, God fashioned a woman for Adam. God told them not to eat from the fruit of a particular tree, which they did. God cursed them and ejected them from the place where they were living. Humanity descended from this primeval pair who were both the product of evolution and special creation."

There is no biblical support Adam was born dead...nor even born at all from parents. It's stuff like this that has to be made up and inserted between the lines of the scripture to force fit evolutionism into the bible. If that's what really happened....why didn't God say so in Genesis? Forming man from dust is a long way from breaking a chromosome.

You're scenario creates other problems. You date Adam to be around several millions of years ago. The bible puts it this way:
Luke 3:23 and onward.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God. Biblically your dates appear to be several millions years to high.

Chromosomal fusion has certain problems of it's own concerning that theory. I have seen explainations of why it fails. The topic is to broad to discuss here as I am limited for time.