Kenny'sID wrote - "Just to many changes form the simple word has to come into play, in order to make evolution work."
Why not detail for me the "Changes" that I made to scripture? Otherwise this is just an unsubstantiated claim and a vague general non-specific contention of little value. If you mean interpretation as opposed to changes then still you need to show where exactly it is amiss and how I'm reading into the passage to "make evolution work". In order to do that one would need to show how scripture is being "stretched" or twisted.
Kenny'sID wrote - "It's as though someone pulled that out of scripture to make it work with evolution and no one would think any such thing had the theory of evolution never been introduced."
Simple, what was "pulled out" of scripture? Is DNA in the bible?, Atoms, electrons, protons, etc., etc., in the bible? Give some consideration to Romans 1:20...or would you suggest that if it isn't in the Bible we can have no "understanding"?
Kenny'sID wrote - "At any rate seems a lot of stretch, and "leaning unto our own understanding", as well as assumptions, to reach your possible conclusion, something that also leaves questions/confusion, or us knowing nothing concrete."
Again, general and vague response... where is the stretch? How is it "leaning...understanding"? What assumptions? What are the questions? What confusion? "Nothing Concrete"... Do you understand all things? It is only a stretch to you because it disagrees with your interpretation... but if you were to read other posts on this thread you will find many in disagreement with your interpretation.
Kenny'sID wrote - "Then there is that thing were God is not a God of confusion, while again, that leaves us confused/guessing in the end. I'd think, just as he told it like it was with creation, he would have simply said they evolved if they did...but he did not, why would he not?
What is confusing? That God used processes just as we see in the natural world today? Again, specifically address your contention... As I pointed out to you and you did not answer, if as in Gen. 1:3 is clearly immediate - "And God said, Let there be light and there was light"...So if all creation was immediate why was this pattern not followed as in And God said, "Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"? So wouldn't he simply have stated as in Gen. 1:3 the immediate? You said , below, "he's smart enough to make us understand..." so why not use the pattern of Gen. 1:3? Again, no answer from you on this...
Kenny'sID wrote - "And he's smart enough to make us understand anything, dispelling the popular argument, he put it the way he did because "we wouldn't understand evolution" ...yet another completely unbiblical "leaning to our our understanding" not his word."
Nobody doubts that he could make us understand, then why isn't it specifically stated in the bible as to the exact time? In truth YEC and strict creationists (those rejecting any plausible interpretations other than immediacy and "6,000 years") do in fact "lean on their own understanding" dismissing any evidence to the contrary and being open to reasoned and hermeneutically sound interpretations, Romans 1:20. It is also "unbiblical" to not use our God given reason to plumb the depths of scripture, and rather to just muddle along based on our own pedantic understanding. So do you believe in pre-trib, post-trib, midtrib, or even no-trib and why isn't it made so clear that there is no room for discussion? (As you note "he's smart enough to make us understand anything"... so why do opinions vary?)
Kenny'sID wrote - "It's simply my opinion, an opinion that I have no doubt is shared by many, that you are adding so many unfounded "could have beens" that you end up pulling something from scripture that is far from the simple story being told there. "
True, it is simply your opinion...it may be shared by many so I will wait for them to respond. If you think that the creation of the universe, earth, and all of life is simple...so be it. It may be simple on the surface to say "God created" and we would all here agree but to "understand the things that have been made" is far from simple...otherwise the Bible would explain all of the scientific discoveries over the past hundreds - thousands of years...
Kenny'sID wrote - "Let the water/land bring forth" the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God, but some want to lean unto their own understanding, and once the bible is stretched so far that's what it becomes, our own understanding/no longer the truth, a stretch of the simple truths of the bible because "we are smart", we then end up with things like theories and unproven confusion, like evolution....or the unreasonable."
Again, this says very little to address the mediate command..."the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God..., a very confusing and muddled reply. Where does the bible say that the land and water are "home to things" in the creation narrative, of course we can reason this but it says little about the actual details of creation. "Things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God" once again, how were the bodies created since the bible says nothing like this, rather it says "Let the land produce... ? What you don't address is the HOW based on scripture so it seems you are the one "leaning" and "stretching" and "own understanding" and "no longer the truth". You have absolutely no proof that a) the universe/earth is 6,000 or so years old. b) That God did not create through processes. c) That scripture is being "stretched"... rather your responses amount to my
"overthinking", "Reason can get out of hand", "some want to lean unto their own understanding", "bible is stretched", ".../no longer the truth", "we are smart", "unreasonable" and none of these speak to what the scripture/passages actually say. Again, answers these specifically or question me on my interpretation without the vague responses as listed above....
What does "Let the land produce..." mean?
How is it not mediate creation?
Was the command sufficient to create?
If the command was sufficient then why would it be necessary to qualify as "God made"?
Gen. 1:3 is clearly immediate - And God said, Let there be light and there was light"...So if all creation was immediate why was this pattern not followed as in And God said, "Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"?
Why the often use of "And it was so" after the command to created matter?
The command was to the "land"/earth/dust and we are told that man and animal are from the same substance what does that suggest?
Do you not see a structure of creation as was noted with Gen. 1?
We know that plant, animal, and human life involves a process why is it so anathema that this same process was from the beginning?
If you want to continue to avoid answering the specific questions based solely on a plain reading of Genesis then it is just a waste of time. If you want to have a serious discussion please respond to the questions again without general statements that have little bearing on the words of scripture. You want to claim that you've addressed the questions...please show me where and if I didn't respond.
