A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

[Jamsie]

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.

Perhaps if you were to answer questions and not "grasp at straws" such as God getting down on his hands and knees to form Adam you wouldn't be so bored. If you were to attempt to respond to what has been said instead of saying things that were never said...that might help. So be very clear what exactly have I "skirted around" … and be sure its just that you don't like the answers.

 

[Jamsie]

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.

TE can't because you say so? I will suggest that it could be exactly as it is outlined in the Bible. You simply ignore what has been written... that is why I used and explained the difference between Create and intervene. You come up with God giving mouth to mouth to Adam, and down on his hands and knees to form...and my interpretation is unrealistic?

You refuse to directly say yes or no as to whether God's commands were all sufficient? Do you have a valid response to why the passage says "Let the land produce..."? If you are so bored you can just cease to post...your questions have been addressed, you may not like them but they are based on the passage.

 

[-57]

Perhaps if you were to answer questions and not "grasp at straws" such as God getting down on his hands and knees to form Adam you wouldn't be so bored. If you were to attempt to respond to what has been said instead of saying things that were never said...that might help. So be very clear what exactly have I "skirted around" … and be sure its just that you don't like the answers.

You've been skirting around the question of original sin.

 

[-57]

TE can't because you say so? I will suggest that it could be exactly as it is outlined in the Bible. You simply ignore what has been written... that is why I used and explained the difference between Create and intervene. You come up with God giving mouth to mouth to Adam, and down on his hands and knees to form...and my interpretation is unrealistic?

You refuse to directly say yes or no as to whether God's commands were all sufficient? Do you have a valid response to why the passage says "Let the land produce..."? If you are so bored you can just cease to post...your questions have been addressed, you may not like them but they are based on the passage.

You continue to skirt the issue.

 

[Jamsie]

You continue to skirt the issue.

We discussed many issues and you would have to specifically show me what was skirted...as I noted you may not like the answers but that isn't "skirting". Post #64 - 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?

Post #70 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?

The point is and was that God could have "intervened" at any point to create Adam or Adam was a special creation as was pointed out to you. I used the sun stopping, Nile parting, and donkey talking to demonstrate that God intervenes because he has ultimate control thus the norms can be altered. So whether by special creation or at a certain point in time God chose to breath the "breath of life" into Adam we are not told. Then again, and again I've asked various questions such as "Was 'And God said" all sufficient for creation?" How is original sin lost? (I noted God's ability to intervene) You claim the Bible needs to be changed to accept evolution, can you explain exactly how?
"Male and Female"...Genesis 1:27, seems clear? Is Genesis 2:21-22 explanatory in light of Genesis 1:27?

You need not admit but your God gave "mouth to mouth" and got down on his "hands and knees" makes little sense. I can claim that we don't know everything as it is not directly given to us … but I don't need to come up with some explanation without any scriptural reference at all.

So, no issue has been skirted...you just don't like the answer....

 

[SavedByGrace3]

uhhh... single pair of Adam and Eve means only two people on earth. That is what single pair means.

Of me reading between the lines: LOL, I always think other people don't look deep enough. lol

The Bible clearly says the EARTH BROUGHT FORTH LIVING CREATURES. If I say "let Larry mow the lawn, It isn't me out there sweating like a pig. It is Larry. Similarly God delegated the bringing forth of life to the Earth.

Hey Gbob. Hope you are feeling well.
Yes. I liken it to a factory. I own a factory that builds widgets. "Let the factory bring forth widgets." I do not personally build the widgets, my factory and employees do the actual work. If someone asks me what I do I can honestly say "I create widgets." But it is not me doing the actual work... it is my agents.
When God said "let the earth bring forth..." He was empowering the elements of His creation to develop life. That is how He chose to do it. Brilliant really. Glory be to our God.

 

[Jamsie]

.​

 

[-57]

We discussed many issues and you would have to specifically show me what was skirted...as I noted you may not like the answers but that isn't "skirting". Post #64 - 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?

Post #70 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?

The point is and was that God could have "intervened" at any point to create Adam or Adam was a special creation as was pointed out to you. I used the sun stopping, Nile parting, and donkey talking to demonstrate that God intervenes because he has ultimate control thus the norms can be altered. So whether by special creation or at a certain point in time God chose to breath the "breath of life" into Adam we are not told. Then again, and again I've asked various questions such as "Was 'And God said" all sufficient for creation?" How is original sin lost? (I noted God's ability to intervene) You claim the Bible needs to be changed to accept evolution, can you explain exactly how?
"Male and Female"...Genesis 1:27, seems clear? Is Genesis 2:21-22 explanatory in light of Genesis 1:27?

You need not admit but your God gave "mouth to mouth" and got down on his "hands and knees" makes little sense. I can claim that we don't know everything as it is not directly given to us … but I don't need to come up with some explanation without any scriptural reference at all.

So, no issue has been skirted...you just don't like the answer....

As I have said....when you mix evolution with Genesis you deny original sin. Your theology which blends evolutionism and OE'ism with the bible can't explain original sin.

The bible says sin and death entered via 1 man. It was an act of disobedience. Evolution says populations evolve. For mankind sinning is a natural by-product of evolution.

I've asked you numerous times how sin came into the world if what Genesis says is only figurative and not literal.

 

[Jamsie]

As I have said....when you mix evolution with Genesis you deny original sin. Your theology which blends evolutionism and OE'ism with the bible can't explain original sin.

The bible says sin and death entered via 1 man. It was an act of disobedience. Evolution says populations evolve. For mankind sinning is a natural by-product of evolution.

I've asked you numerous times how sin came into the world if what Genesis says is only figurative and not literal.

And I've answered but you a either a one trick pony or a broken record...this is pointless as I've said on the other thread and showed you my responses addressing this. I've also pointed out regarding Genesis 1 and 2 and where exactly figurative comes into play but you ignore what was written and decide to frame it your way and build a strawman...

 

[-57]

And I've answered but you a either a one trick pony or a broken record...this is pointless as I've said on the other thread and showed you my responses addressing this. I've also pointed out regarding Genesis 1 and 2 and where exactly figurative comes into play but you ignore what was written and decide to frame it your way and build a strawman...

Well, lets put it this way...if you explained original sin evo-style, you barely mentioned it...if you even mentioned it at all.

 

[Jamsie]

Well, lets put it this way...if you explained original sin evo-style, you barely mentioned it...if you even mentioned it at all.

Here again: Post #64 - 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?

Post #70 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?

The point is and was that God could have "intervened" at any point to create Adam or Adam was a special creation as was pointed out to you.

Do you not consider that these mention it? Why not ask specific questions if you have them instead of falsely saying "if you even mentioned it at all."

Since this is being discussed in the other thread there is no reason to go back and forth here...just address what you need on the other thread...and do try and read what has been written.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Well, lets put it this way...i.

Hi -57
A question.. a sincere question... not a trap or anything like that.
How do you interpret these verses that I understand God to be empowering the ground and water to bring forth life? Who or what "brought forth" the living things? I would just like to hear your opinion. I will not respond or counter unless you ask me something having to do with these verses. Sorry if this is too involved or requires to much of your time... If so, just refuse and I thank you anyway. Maybe someone else can respond.
Thanks! And Lord bless you for your faithfulness to the word and love for our God!

Gen 1:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[-57]

Here again: Post #64 - 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?

Post #70 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?

The point is and was that God could have "intervened" at any point to create Adam or Adam was a special creation as was pointed out to you.

Do you not consider that these mention it? Why not ask specific questions if you have them instead of falsely saying "if you even mentioned it at all."

Since this is being discussed in the other thread there is no reason to go back and forth here...just address what you need on the other thread...and do try and read what has been written.

Are you going to explain original sin or not?

 

[Jamsie]

Are you going to explain original sin or not?

Seriously, you do not know the theology of original sin...here these verses should help you to some understanding key words excerpted)

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned
Romans 5:12 - through one man sin entered...all have sinned.
Romans 5:18 - through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...
Ephesians 2:3 - were by nature children of wrath...
1 Cor. 15:22 - For as in Adam all die ...
*there are many other verses that address our sin state but then 1 John 1:8-10

Total depravity as referred to in Calvinism... theologically might be expressed as the loss of original righteousness in Adam thus inherited sin on all of humanity.

 

[-57]

Hi -57
A question.. a sincere and question... not a trap or anything like that.
How do you interpret these verses that I understand God to be empowering the ground and water to bring forth life? Who or what "brought forth" the living things? I would just like to hear your opinion. I will not respond or counter unless you ask me something having to do with these verses. Sorry if this is too involved or requires to much of your time... If so, just refuse and I thank you anyway. Maybe someone else can respond.
Thanks! And Lord bless you for your faithfulness to the word and love for our God!

Gen 1:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

When you look at other translations you see several words used for 1876 dasha.

You see sprout
You see produce
You see put forth
You see bring forth
You see cause

Oddly enough the word is only used twice in the OT.

There are some here that want to say "dasha" when used here refers to a process of evolution or descent with modification. That seems to be quite a stretch and not the way the context of the word is used in scripture.

Bring forth, (dasha)...is giving the earth the ability to immediataly produce, sprout, vegetation.

It's also interesting that Gen 1:24 uses the word 3318 yatsa for bring forth. The definition is "to go or come out". If one clicks on the link for yatsa on the right you can see all the ways the word is used. Once again no reference to evolution.

Gen 1:12 uses "dasha" while 1:13 uses "yatsa".

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Thanks for your input. Well taken here.
Blessings!

When you look at other translations you see several words used for 1876 dasha.

You see sprout
You see produce
You see put forth
You see bring forth
You see cause

Oddly enough the word is only used twice in the OT.

There are some here that want to say "dasha" when used here refers to a process of evolution or descent with modification. That seems to be quite a stretch and not the way the context of the word is used in scripture.

Bring forth, (dasha)...is giving the earth the ability to immediataly produce, sprout, vegetation.

It's also interesting that Gen 1:24 uses the word 3318 yatsa for bring forth. The definition is "to go or come out". If one clicks on the link for yatsa on the right you can see all the ways the word is used. Once again no reference to evolution.

Gen 1:12 uses "dasha" while 1:13 uses "yatsa".

 

[-57]

Seriously, you do not know the theology of original sin...here these verses should help you to some understanding key words excerpted)

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned
Romans 5:12 - through one man sin entered...all have sinned.
Romans 5:18 - through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...
Ephesians 2:3 - were by nature children of wrath...
1 Cor. 15:22 - For as in Adam all die ...
*there are many other verses that address our sin state but then 1 John 1:8-10

Total depravity as referred to in Calvinism... theologically might be expressed as the loss of original righteousness in Adam thus inherited sin on all of humanity.

Good, I think we both have the same concept of original sin. The question is, if mankind evolved...in other words Adam was part of a population...same with Eve...both had parents, how did sin and death spread to all the people?
I can see it spreading if only Adam and Eve existed at on time (like the bible says)....but if a population or even several populations exist it doesn't seem to work.

 

[Jamsie]

Hi -57 A question.. a sincere and question... not a trap or anything like that.

I thought I would insert this from my perspective if you haven't been following:

First a general look at Genesis 1 and it’s construction. “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

So if God's commands are the sole agency of creation it would be logical that what follows the fiat must be explanatory. As noted the efficacy of the command would involve the fulfillment. Any "It was so" would establish the fulfillment based solely on his decree. The structure would strongly suggest that there is a command(s), fulfillment, explanatory comments, and the particular day.

“And God said, let the land produce...”. (or "let the land bring forth/produce vegetation" or "Let the water bring forth/teem with...") ..."Understanding as we do that the command is the sole operative agency then one can’t help but notice that the command/fiat is directed not to living creatures, vegetation, birds but to the land/water. Gen. 1:24 speaks to the mediate creation of animals as we know that animals like “man” were created from the “dust” of the earth/land. Earth/Land/Dust being a pre-existing material (creatio ex materia) thus at one level clearly mediate creation. The passage avoids “let there be living creatures...” or let there be vegetation", etc. but again if the command itself is the sole operative then it is quite plain what God is commanding...the land/water. Is it not possible that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced... as we see today?

As to the age of the earth question what prohibits each day to be based upon the decree invoked without reference to the time for the fiat to be ultimately manifested? I believe 2 Peter 3:8 is figurative not literal with the intent to assert that God is timeless, so why do we attempt to put time limits on him? So in six days God created everything, not necessary to be consecutive, not necessary to be of specific duration...each day represents the fiat(s). Some call it the "creation week" the Bible does not.
*****
You and I seem to be of the same general page and I'm curious how you arrived at your perspective or interpretation? Unfortunately I had lost all of my original notes from quite a few years of study and only have discussion posts remaining.

 

[-57]

I thought I would insert this from my perspective if you haven't been following:

First a general look at Genesis 1 and it’s construction. “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

So if God's commands are the sole agency of creation it would be logical that what follows the fiat must be explanatory. As noted the efficacy of the command would involve the fulfillment. Any "It was so" would establish the fulfillment based solely on his decree. The structure would strongly suggest that there is a command(s), fulfillment, explanatory comments, and the particular day.

“And God said, let the land produce...”. (or "let the land bring forth/produce vegetation" or "Let the water bring forth/teem with...") ..."Understanding as we do that the command is the sole operative agency then one can’t help but notice that the command/fiat is directed not to living creatures, vegetation, birds but to the land/water. Gen. 1:24 speaks to the mediate creation of animals as we know that animals like “man” were created from the “dust” of the earth/land. Earth/Land/Dust being a pre-existing material (creatio ex materia) thus at one level clearly mediate creation. The passage avoids “let there be living creatures...” or let there be vegetation", etc. but again if the command itself is the sole operative then it is quite plain what God is commanding...the land/water. Is it not possible that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced... as we see today?

As to the age of the earth question what prohibits each day to be based upon the decree invoked without reference to the time for the fiat to be ultimately manifested? I believe 2 Peter 3:8 is figurative not literal with the intent to assert that God is timeless, so why do we attempt to put time limits on him? So in six days God created everything, not necessary to be consecutive, not necessary to be of specific duration...each day represents the fiat(s). Some call it the "creation week" the Bible does not.
*****
You and I seem to be of the same general page and I'm curious how you arrived at your perspective or interpretation? Unfortunately I had lost all of my original notes from quite a few years of study and only have discussion posts remaining.

Bring forth in verse 11 is a different word than bring forth used in verse 24.

Post 95 points that out.

 

[Jamsie]

Good, I think we both have the same concept of original sin. The question is, if mankind evolved...in other words Adam was part of a population...same with Eve...both had parents, how did sin and death spread to all the people?
I can see it spreading if only Adam and Eve existed at on time (like the bible says)....but if a population or even several populations exist it doesn't seem to work.

I don't have time to defend what I am about to quickly suggest...perhaps briefly tomorrow. If God did use a process to bring forth humanity he clearly, as we discussed his ability to intervene, could have taken Adam and placed him in the garden separating him and then creating Eve. I personally don't put much emphasis on this because whether by a pure act of creation or by separating Adam, with the "breath of life", from the "population" still original sin" or the "fall" would still be completely viable either way. Sorry would have to address another time....