A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

[-57]

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.

There is no reason to think God didn't fashion man from the dust with actual hands. There are several accounts in the OT where God shows up in human form.

 

[-57]

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



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....

Much of the bible has to be changed for evolutionism to work.
For you, the concept of original sin disappears...as demonstrated by your lack of ability to explain it.

 

[Jamsie]

There is no reason to think God didn't fashion man from the dust with actual hands. There are several accounts in the OT where God shows up in human form.

Can you point me to where in Genesis that there is any implication that God took on human form for the purpose of creation?

 

[Jamsie]

Much of the bible has to be changed for evolutionism to work.
For you, the concept of original sin disappears...as demonstrated by your lack of ability to explain it.

You claim the Bible needs to be changed to accept evolution, can you explain exactly how? Again, I've yet to hear a reasoned reply to what Genesis clearly states as a direct command to existing material to produce?

You keep harping on original sin, and I keeping asking how does it disappear? I would be certain that the concept of original sin has for me the same explanation as yours. Please, since you make these statements, show me where I denied Adam and Eve or original sin?

 

[Gbob]

You're article said


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.

I don't think you actually understood the article. An ape was born dead, God made him into Adam. No, there is no verse that says it, other than at the Fall, God said, for dust you are and to dust you will return. Well before Adams body falls apart, he was a corpse. The Hebrew word for 'dust' aphar, can also be translated as rubbish or earth, For rubbish you were and to rubbish you will return.

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.

If you insist that young-age is the only way, then you make the Bible story false, because the observational data says that we share non-working genes with the other apes, and the average ages of our genes is around a million years, some genes have so much diversity that it would take 5 million years at the OBSERVED rates of mutation to generate all that diversity. Thus, your view insistes that God made the human race with genes that look older, and there are more variants of the genes than could fit inside Adam and Eve. The DRB1 gene has 11,757 different alleles, If you know what an allele is, then that means there is that much variability in that one piece of DNA. At most Adam and Eve could have had 4 of them. It takes time for all those variants to generate

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.

I think I said it failed, and produced a dead ape, that God fixed up. Yep, you didn't even try to understand the article.

 

[-57]

I don't think you actually understood the article. An ape was born dead, God made him into Adam. No, there is no verse that says it, other than at the Fall, God said, for dust you are and to dust you will return. Well before Adams body falls apart, he was a corpse. The Hebrew word for 'dust' aphar, can also be translated as rubbish or earth, For rubbish you were and to rubbish you will return.

No, I understood the article..and thought it was quite strange that you would have God bring to life a dead ape and call the ape Adam.
Once again this is not what the Bible teaches.
the Bible teaches Adam was formed from the dust...not made from a stillborn ape brought back to life. You're made Adam from a still born ape story would be like saying Jesus never died but swooned.

If you insist that young-age is the only way, then you make the Bible story false, because the observational data says that we share non-working genes with the other apes, and the average ages of our genes is around a million years, some genes have so much diversity that it would take 5 million years at the OBSERVED rates of mutation to generate all that diversity. Thus, your view insistes that God made the human race with genes that look older, and there are more variants of the genes than could fit inside Adam and Eve. The DRB1 gene has 11,757 different alleles, If you know what an allele is, then that means there is that much variability in that one piece of DNA. At most Adam and Eve could have had 4 of them. It takes time for all those variants to generate

What you are doing is sharing an interpretation of observable data...claiming it to be the right interpretation...then judging the Bible against it. You seem to disregard what a common creator would do or could do when making animals and other organisms.

You have no idea what the original created genes or heterozygosity was. In steps speculation based upon today.

I think I said it failed, and produced a dead ape, that God fixed up. Yep, you didn't even try to understand the article.

1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

I noticed it said "dust"....not a stillborn ape.
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

 

[-57]

Can you point me to where in Genesis that there is any implication that God took on human form for the purpose of creation?

I don't have to. The verse pretty much speaks for itself. God breathed into Adam . That pretty up close and personal.

 

[-57]

You claim the Bible needs to be changed to accept evolution, can you explain exactly how? Again, I've yet to hear a reasoned reply to what Genesis clearly states as a direct command to existing material to produce?

You keep harping on original sin, and I keeping asking how does it disappear? I would be certain that the concept of original sin has for me the same explanation as yours. Please, since you make these statements, show me where I denied Adam and Eve or original sin?

Evolutionism doesn't have a woman being made after man...and fashioned from a mans rib.

Evolutionism say's populations evolve. In light of that, when, why and how did man fall? Where was the population when it fell? I'm just asking questions. You don't seem to have any answers that square with the Bible.

 

[Jamsie]

I don't have to. The verse pretty much speaks for itself. God breathed into Adam . That pretty up close and personal.

Again, you are reading something into scripture that just isn't there. Does God require oxygen, does he need to breath... and do you have other scholars that support the notion that God took human form to create all that is?

 

[Jamsie]

Evolutionism doesn't have a woman being made after man...and fashioned from a mans rib.

Evolutionism say's populations evolve. In light of that, when, why and how did man fall? Where was the population when it fell? I'm just asking questions. You don't seem to have any answers that square with the Bible.

I have given you a multitude of answers concerning the plain reading of scripture yet you are the one unable to answer "Let the land produce" and comparing Gen. 1 to Gen. 2 so?

Further, we discussed God intervening though we disagreed exactly how it was to be used. You suggested Gen. 1:1 could read "In the beginning God intervened...", I made the distinction. Given that why do you believe that Adam and Eve were either not a special creation by His own determination? Where did I deny that God does in fact intervene?

 

[-57]

Again, you are reading something into scripture that just isn't there. Does God require oxygen, does he need to breath... and do you have other scholars that support the notion that God took human form to create all that is?

I don't think God the Holy Spirit was in human form when hovering above the deep.
Whether or not Jesus was in human form when He made man from the dirt really is of no consequence.

 

[-57]

I have given you a multitude of answers concerning the plain reading of scripture yet you are the one unable to answer "Let the land produce" and comparing Gen. 1 to Gen. 2 so?

Further, we discussed God intervening though we disagreed exactly how it was to be used. You suggested Gen. 1:1 could read "In the beginning God intervened...", I made the distinction. Given that why do you believe that Adam and Eve were either not a special creation by His own determination? Where did I deny that God does in fact intervene?

I fail to see the point of your argument as it relates to populations evolving and original sin.

You seem to be dodging this question with the Grinch's 39 1/2 foot long pole.

 

[Jamsie]

I don't think God the Holy Spirit was in human form when hovering above the deep.
Whether or not Jesus was in human form when He made man from the dirt really is of no consequence.

OK, good...I see no implication that would suggest such...but then our perspective on Genesis/Creation is limited.

 

[Jamsie]

I fail to see the point of your argument as it relates to populations evolving and original sin.

You seem to be dodging this question with the Grinch's 39 1/2 foot long pole.

I am not dodging anything we simply disagree on what Genesis is capable of giving us in terms of understanding. I am suggesting that God could at any point after creation intervene. That is what intervene would mean...so you had given one example, but is it so that the sun stops once in awhile since creation or is it that God intervened? Is it common for the Nile to part on occasion or di God intervene? Again, is it common for donkeys to talk or did God intervene? On and on, but it should be clear that the "laws" of nature were established at creation...any deviation implies God's intervention, does it not? And if God used evolution as the means for life to multiply does that mean he can no longer intervene? (Lets not go around in circles for too long...)

 

[-57]

OK, good...I see no implication that would suggest such...but then our perspective on Genesis/Creation is limited.

I see God as on His hands and knees forming man (Adam) from the dirt....not sitting back and watching mutations creating man from a lesser animal.

 

[-57]

I am not dodging anything we simply disagree on what Genesis is capable of giving us in terms of understanding. I am suggesting that God could at any point after creation intervene. That is what intervene would mean...so you had given one example, but is it so that the sun stops once in awhile since creation or is it that God intervened? Is it common for the Nile to part on occasion or di God intervene? Again, is it common for donkeys to talk or did God intervene? On and on, but it should be clear that the "laws" of nature were established at creation...any deviation implies God's intervention, does it not? And if God used evolution as the means for life to multiply does that mean he can no longer intervene? (Lets not go around in circles for too long...)

When God intervenes....its typically a miracle. It's often for different reasons. It has several nuances.

God intervened when He laid out the curse placed upon Adam, Eve, and the servant. Then again the Theo-evo would say that never happened.

 

[Jamsie]

I see God as on His hands and knees forming man (Adam) from the dirt....not sitting back and watching mutations creating man from a lesser animal.

So you then do not accept that as the scripture says And God said...as noted in other passages that was the sole operative agency of creation? Once again you are saying that God looks just like we do...even though God is "Spirit" therefore immaterial? If God chose to create by means of evolution, and since clearly he directed the land/water to produce why is that so unacceptable? All of creation even if by an evolutionary process would have been totally under his control and by his directive...nothing about that diminishes God.

 

[Jamsie]

When God intervenes....its typically a miracle. It's often for different reasons. It has several nuances.

God intervened when He laid out the curse placed upon Adam, Eve, and the servant. Then again the Theo-evo would say that never happened.

Here we go again, please show me where it was stated that my Theo-evo interpretation states the "fall" never happened? So the creation of the universe wasn't miraculous? (For if he created the very laws of nature doesn't he have command over them?) If God chose to create male and female by his means is that not a miracle?

 

[-57]

So you then do not accept that as the scripture says And God said...as noted in other passages that was the sole operative agency of creation? Once again you are saying that God looks just like we do...even though God is "Spirit" therefore immaterial? If God chose to create by means of evolution, and since clearly he directed the land/water to produce why is that so unacceptable? All of creation even if by an evolutionary process would have been totally under his control and by his directive...nothing about that diminishes God.

You're actually beginning to bore me right now...as you seem to want to skirt around the issue....and in this case putting words into my mouth.

Bottom line...I really don't care what form God was in when He created. Your problem is the description in the book of Genesis comes no where near evolutionism.

 

[-57]

Here we go again, please show me where it was stated that my Theo-evo interpretation states the "fall" never happened? So the creation of the universe wasn't miraculous? (For if he created the very laws of nature doesn't he have command over them?) If God chose to create male and female by his means is that not a miracle?

All right, so you believe the fall happened. Who? How? Why? When? Where? Genesis answers those questions.....Theo-Evoism doesn't. Theo-Evoism can't.