Creation or Evolution?

[Iosias]

Article found here.

 

[Dannager]

At least the author decided to play it safe and neglected science entirely. It's good to see creationists implicitly admitting that they can't compete with science. The old "hold-the-Bible-in-front-of-your-face-and-plug-your-ears" tactic doesn't seem to be going out of style, though.

 

[lucaspa]

Article found here.

First, it's not an "either/or". Evolution is the HOW of Creation. It's how God created.

From the article:

"The source of my information concerning origins is Genesis 1. It is true that this account of Genesis is not meant to be a scientific treatise; it is not a science text-book. However, Genesis 1, together with all of Scripture, is the infallible Word of God. "

1. I thought Jesus was the Word.

2. If "all of Scripture" is the "infallible Word of God", why does the article only look at Genesis 1? There is another creation story in Genesis 2. When also read literally and "infallibly", those stories contradict.

So, not only has this person made a false idol of "infallible Word of God", but has left out scripture to confine his false idol to Genesis 1.

I've seen you post a couple of these types of articles, AV1611. I have to ask: why do you want to destroy Christianity?

 

[juvenissun]

I am sure the topic has been extensively investigated by others. But this is a personal mission, not a scientific publication. So let's go there one more time.

What contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2? I don't see any. Do you mean the sequence on the creation of vegies and adam? What do you think about some alternative interpretations people have suggested? What are wrong with them?

Or is there other "contradictions" in the chapters?

 

[lucaspa]

I am sure the topic has been extensively investigated by others. But this is a personal mission, not a scientific publication. So let's go there one more time.

What contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2? I don't see any. Do you mean the sequence on the creation of vegies and adam? What do you think about some alternative interpretations people have suggested? What are wrong with them?

Or is there other "contradictions" in the chapters?

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

The suggestion that in Genesis 2 God created the animals elsewhere and just brought samples to the Garden doesn't work if you read the text literally. We find Genesis 2:18-19 using the same language as Genesis 2:7 when God made Adam. If Genesis 2:7 is God literally making Adam from dust, then Genesis 2:19 has to be the same thing -- making the animal or bird from dust. To do anything else gives up "literal" to try to make the stories "consistent". And, if you give up "literal" there in order to make the 2 stories consistent, then you can't argue against giving up literal in all of Genesis 1-3 in order to make God's two books consistent.

 

[kevin36]

The apparent differances between Gen 1 and 2 aren't two seperate creation accounts, but two tellings of the same account. The first tells what God did, the second how.

Everything was spoken into existence except for Man, who God created with His own hands from the dust of the Earth.

Each creature was created "after it's own kind", and they have never evolved into differant animals. Animals adapt, that's easy to see, but they don't change as drastically as science would have us believe. A bird is a bird, a fish is a fish, etc, etc...

Kevin

 

[crawfish]

The apparent differances between Gen 1 and 2 aren't two seperate creation accounts, but two tellings of the same account. The first tells what God did, the second how.

That still doesn't explain the differences between the two accounts.

All I have to say about the article is, at least the guy admits he doesn't understand the science. If Genesis has to be taken literally, then either the God's word is lying to us or God's creation is. I choose to believe there's another way.

 

[HypnoToad]

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

The suggestion that in Genesis 2 God created the animals elsewhere and just brought samples to the Garden doesn't work if you read the text literally. We find Genesis 2:18-19 using the same language as Genesis 2:7 when God made Adam. If Genesis 2:7 is God literally making Adam from dust, then Genesis 2:19 has to be the same thing -- making the animal or bird from dust. To do anything else gives up "literal" to try to make the stories "consistent". And, if you give up "literal" there in order to make the 2 stories consistent, then you can't argue against giving up literal in all of Genesis 1-3 in order to make God's two books consistent.

Those are hardly "contradictions" at all.

1. Different name does not equate to contradiction. By your reasoning, Jesus can't be God, because His name is "Jesus" and not "Elohim" or "Yahweh". My mom calls my dad, "Jerry"; but I call him, "dad", and his birth certificate says, "Gerald". You seriously want to say all three "contradict" each other??

2. The term can be either 24 hrs, or a time period of non-specific length, like in the phrase, "back in my day, we used to ...." No contradiction.

3. The plants in ch.1 are all plants in general; those in ch.2 are a subset - plants "of the field". The animals are also a smaller subset, not all animals in general as in ch.1. As to creation of man, ch.1 does NOT say they were created simultaneously - it only says God created them in the same day, not at the same exact moment.

4. As with the animals, see last comment. As to man, nowhere does ch.1 say "let there be" in regards to man's creation.. It says, "let us create" without specifying a method.

5-6. "No mention of it" is an argument from silence, not valid. Death "within the day" does not mean a 24-hr period. The "120 years" is the time from that statement to the day the flood began, it is not about a human lifespan. And again, "A and B don't mention it" is 1) an argument from silence, and 2) the occurrence of nephilim is not part of the creation account, so there's no reason the creation accounts would mention them.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I really wish we could avoid the claims that theistic evolutionists are heretics, and young earth creationists are idiots.

I'm a theistic evolutionist, and I believe filmly in the sovereignty of God, his work in creation, a historical fall, original sin in which we are all guilty, and the infallibility and authority of the Scriptures over the whole people of God.

But I guess that's just too much for young earth creationists to accept- all people who think that the modern evolutionary synthesis is an acceptable scientific theory must be atheists, or atheists in disguise.

 

[kevin36]

I agree with you except for that last sentence.

The only thing that matters is Jesus. "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." If you've done that, to me you're a brother, and any other differances are just things to talk about 'round the dinner table.

God Bless!!
Kevin

 

[crawfish]

1. Different name does not equate to contradiction. By your reasoning, Jesus can't be God, because His name is "Jesus" and not "Elohim" or "Yahweh". My mom calls my dad, "Jerry"; but I call him, "dad", and his birth certificate says, "Gerald". You seriously want to say all three "contradict" each other??

Are you suggesting that different people wrote each part?

 

[HypnoToad]

Are you suggesting that different people wrote each part?

I did not suggest that. The only point was different names don't equate to "contradiction". The same writer could use different names to show different aspects depending on the situation. "Elohim" reflects sovereignty and the ultimate authority of God, and therefore is used in Gen.1 where the focus is the entirety of creation. "Yahweh" reflects a God interacting on a personal level with man, and is therefore used in Gen.2 where the focus shifts onto man specifically.

However, there is nothing preventing multiple writers, with Moses being the compiler. I'm NOT talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, but rather the Tablet Theory.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I did not suggest that. The only point was different names don't equate to "contradiction". The same writer could use different names to show different aspects depending on the situation. "Elohim" reflects sovereignty and the ultimate authority of God, and therefore is used in Gen.1 where the focus is the entirety of creation. "Yahweh" reflects a God interacting on a personal level with man, and is therefore used in Gen.2 where the focus shifts onto man specifically.

However, there is nothing preventing multiple writers, with Moses being the compiler. I'm NOT talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, but rather the Tablet Theory.

What's the tablet theory, if I may ask?

(I myself subscribe to a conservative version of the documentary hypothesis, in which the Elohist passages never constitute actual texts but are rather oral traditions of the northern tribes, the Yahwehist Epic is composed by someone operating with Mosaic authority among the southern tribes probably during the period of the judges, and the priestly texts are authentic representations of the Siniatic law and Mosaic temple practices and not Josaic forgeries)

 

[jeffweeder]

Added details are not contradictions, Gen 2 is supplementary.
It starts with ref 2:5-6, which corresponds with the early part of the third day-1:9-10.



5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.



The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.



15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."



Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.


Believe Gen 1 and you will understand Gen 2.

It clearly says no plant had sprouted, which infers that they were there in the ground all the time.

With the Animals, it doesnt say he created them once Adam was in the garden, it says God had made them and bought them to the man.

The focus in Gen 2 is the womans creation and the fall.
supplementary.

In Gen 1, it says that man was created-male+female.
Picture of the sanctity of marriage-1 man-1 woman-1 flesh.
A picture of Christ and the church.(bride)
Adams bride was made from his side while he was asleep--
Bride of christ being made from Christ's side-flow of blood and water that came from his side while he was asleep on the cross

 

[Assyrian]

Believe Gen 1 and you will understand Gen 2.

It clearly says no plant had sprouted, which infers that they were there in the ground all the time.

Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. The earth had already brought forth grass, the herbs had grown and were yielding seed and the trees were already bearing fruit.

Gen 2:5 No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.
In Gen 2 there were no plants of the field. They did not exist (Hebrew verb hayah to be). In contrast to Gen 1:12 where the earth had produced plants which in turn produced seed, in Gen 2 no herbs of the field had sprung up yet. Gen 2 is not a continuation of chapter 1, it is looking back before God created plants.

With the Animals, it doesnt say he created them once Adam was in the garden, it says God had made them and bought them to the man.

The story doesn't tell us God had made the animals. It uses the same tense verb, in the same grammatical structure indicating a consecutive sequence of events, as it uses for the other events in the narrative (the waw consecutive). There were no plants because there wasn't a gardener to till the ground or rain, then God formed man, and then he planted a garden, and then he saw the man was lonely, and then he made the animals.

It is a beautiful, simple story full of deep meaning. But it gives a completely different order of creation to Genesis 1. Now either one or both stories got the order of creation wrong, or one or both of the stories was not meant to be a literal chronology of the history of earth.

 

[HypnoToad]

What's the tablet theory, if I may ask?

Basically, Genesis contains "signature lines" that identify the writer of a particular section. The signature lines are called "toledoths" or also "colophons". The are the lines with the phrase, "these are the generations of ... " (some versions say, "this is the account of ... "). The name at the end of the phrase is who wrote the preceding section. Those sections were originally individual stone tablets that eventually got compiled into Genesis by Moses.

One of the neat results of this theory is that it's possible God Himself wrote Gen.1:1 - 2:4 (in the same manner that He wrote the commandments for Moses). And then Adam would have written 2:5- 5:1.

You can read a little about the theory here:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

I don't care for the Documentary Hypothesis because (for one reason) it's not based on modern archeology which shows that writing began much earlier than the DH supposes. The DH also has single verses being attributed to multiple authors sometimes - it really just hacks the text to pieces.

 

[HypnoToad]

Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. The earth had already brought forth grass, the herbs had grown and were yielding seed and the trees were already bearing fruit.

Gen 2:5 No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.
In Gen 2 there were no plants of the field. They did not exist (Hebrew verb hayah to be). In contrast to Gen 1:12 where the earth had produced plants which in turn produced seed, in Gen 2 no herbs of the field had sprung up yet. Gen 2 is not a continuation of chapter 1, it is looking back before God created plants.

The first is about "plants" and "herbs". The second is about "plants of the field" and "herbs of the field" - a subset of plants, not plants in the general sense of ch.1.

The story doesn't tell us God had made the animals. It uses the same tense verb, in the same grammatical structure indicating a consecutive sequence of events, as it uses for the other events in the narrative (the waw consecutive). There were no plants because there wasn't a gardener to till the ground or rain, then God formed man, and then he planted a garden, and then he saw the man was lonely, and then he made the animals.

It says, "And God formed the animals and brought them to Adam" (paraphrase, but identical structure). This shows the timing of the showing of the animals, but the timing of the forming is an assumption.

The following sentence has the same structure:
"My father built a model car and showed it to me when I was ten years old."

The sentence specifies when the model was shown. But it does not specify when it was built. The sentence structure allows for the model to have been built long before I saw it. Likewise, there's nothing in the text forcing it to mean that the animals were made after man was made.

 

[lucaspa]

The apparent differances between Gen 1 and 2 aren't two seperate creation accounts, but two tellings of the same account. The first tells what God did, the second how.

Everything was spoken into existence except for Man, who God created with His own hands from the dust of the Earth.

Sorry, but in Genesis 2:18-19 the birds and animals are also created from dust by God's own "hands". And in Genesis 1:25 people (both men and women in the Hebrew) are spoken into existence.

Both creation stories are a "how". But they are 2 different how's.

Each creature was created "after it's own kind", and they have never evolved into differant animals. Animals adapt, that's easy to see, but they don't change as drastically as science would have us believe. A bird is a bird, a fish is a fish, etc, etc...

The evidence God left us in His Creation says that they have evolved. Acanthostega is not really a fish and not really an amphibian. And we have "birds" like protoavis that aren't really birds.

Your separation, BTW, is at the level of "Class". Aves is a Class, so is Pisces (fish). At lower levels of classification, there are many more examples of one species turning into another -- in real time no less.

BTW, platypus have hair but lay eggs. Is it really a mammal?

 

[lucaspa]

Those are hardly "contradictions" at all.

1. Different name does not equate to contradiction. By your reasoning, Jesus can't be God, because His name is "Jesus" and not "Elohim" or "Yahweh". My mom calls my dad, "Jerry"; but I call him, "dad", and his birth certificate says, "Gerald". You seriously want to say all three "contradict" each other??

But supposedly we aren't talking about different people calling the same person by different names, are we? Supposedly we are talking about one author referring to one deity. Therefore we SHOULD have the same name thruout.

Thank you for providing so persuasive an argument that we have 2 different stories told by different people.

2. The term can be either 24 hrs, or a time period of non-specific length, like in the phrase, "back in my day, we used to ...." No contradiction.

"yom" can be either a 24 hour day or a time period -- such as a festival. But beyom can't. When the prefix "be" is added to yom in Hebrew, it forms a word that is limited to a 24 hour day. This is seen in Genesis 1 when the authors are talking about the 7th day. They don't want a misinterpretation that the 7th day could be an indefinite period of time (since they don't have a day after the 7th day), so they use "beyom" in Genesis 1 to make sure it is limited to 24 hours.

But, when we get to Genesis 2:4, the word "beyom" is used again. If we are to be literal and consistent, we must also take that to be limited to 24 hours. And that means that what took at least 4 days in Genesis 1 is now done in 24 hours.

3. The plants in ch.1 are all plants in general; those in ch.2 are a subset - plants "of the field". [/quote]

Not really. In Hebrew the plants in Genesis 1 are "herbs" or domestic plants. That corresponds to "plants of the field".

As to creation of man, ch.1 does NOT say they were created simultaneously - it only says God created them in the same day, not at the same exact moment.

Genesis 1 does say "men" and "women", both plural in Hebrew. Genesis 2 has a single man and a single woman. That is a contradiction.

4. As with the animals, see last comment. As to man, nowhere does ch.1 say "let there be" in regards to man's creation.. It says, "let us create" without specifying a method.

In Genesis 1:14 we have God saying "Let there be" and in 1:16 we have "and God made the two lights". So in Genesis 1 we have the precedent that "let there be" by speaking is the same as "let us make". (BTW, the same precedent is in 1:6-7.

For someone that reads a "literal" Bible, you seem awful willing to give up literalism.

5-6. "No mention of it" is an argument from silence, not valid. Death "within the day" does not mean a 24-hr period.

Yes, it does. See the discussion of "beyom" above. The "in the day" is "beyom" in the original Hebrew.

And, if you are going to take the Bible as literal and accurate, then it also has to be complete. You are not allowed to put things in simply because it was not stated. To do so violates a literal reading. Sorry, you are hoist on your own petard.

The "120 years" is the time from that statement to the day the flood began, it is not about a human lifespan.

Genesis 6:3 "Then the Lord said "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." That's NOT referring to the Flood.

And again, "A and B don't mention it" is 1) an argument from silence,

But we are only supposed to have one creation account, right? And that creation account should be complete. Then why aren't these things mentioned?

and 2) the occurrence of nephilim is not part of the creation account, so there's no reason the creation accounts would mention them.

Why do you think the nephilim are not part of the creation account? Where did they come from? You aren't seriously proposing that they have existed forever, like God, are you? There is only ONE God, and that God is creator of the heavens and the earth. If you have the nephilim around forever and not being created, then you are denying the first statement of the creeds. You are denying God as Creator.

Oops.

This is something I want to start a thread on: the failure of creationism and Biblical literalism as theology. However bad creationism is as science -- and it is dreadful -- it is SO much worse as theology.

Like here. Creationism and Biblical literalism leads you into a denial of God.

 

[lucaspa]

"Elohim" reflects sovereignty and the ultimate authority of God, and therefore is used in Gen.1 where the focus is the entirety of creation. "Yahweh" reflects a God interacting on a personal level with man, and is therefore used in Gen.2 where the focus shifts onto man specifically.

Let's test this. Genesis 1-3 is not the only place where we have "elohim" and "yahweh" used. Both are used in Genesis 6-8 (the Flood). So please, just where in that story does it shift from a focus on "the entirety of creation" to a "personal level"?

If your rationalization does not work there, then the rationalization fails.

BTW, Genesis 6-8 is another place where we have 2 complete and different stories from 2 separate sources. Here the editor intertwined the stories more completely, putting sentences from each story adjacent to one another. But you can see the separated here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm#flood

There are many other places in the Torah where we see "elohim" and "yahweh" used but your criteria doesn't apply. The only explanation that works is that there were 2 complete books -- one using Elohim and one using Yahweh -- and an editor put them together into a single work.

I for one see no problem in this for Christianity. There's a problem for Biblical literalism, but since I have concluded that Biblical literalism is a huge danger for and denial of Christianity, I think getting rid of Biblical literalism is a good thing.

However, there is nothing preventing multiple writers, with Moses being the compiler. I'm NOT talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, but rather the Tablet Theory.

It might as well be the Documentary Hypothesis. It's the same thing with a different name.

Of course, you can't have Moses as the compiler because the end of Deuteronomy has events that occurred after Moses' death.