Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution

theFijian · May 16, 2004

theseed said:
I know. But the common ancestor, the missing link, would have to between and ape and and a man--some ape man.

No it wouldn't. Apes/monkeys and man would be descended from the common ancestor.

Andy

theseed · May 16, 2004

theFijian said:
No it wouldn't. Apes/monkeys and man would be descended from the common ancestor.

Andy

That's not what the pictures show.

Holy Warrior · May 16, 2004

If you go with the common ancestor necessitated by the evolution theory, you would have a creature that is enough of a chimpanzee to have descendants who will be recognisable as chimps, but also enough of a human to have descendants who are recognisable as humans. Hence the ape-man concept.

If theistic evolution seems right to you, then fair enough. To me it seems rather a roundabout way for God to work, but that's just my opinion. When we get to heaven, we'll find out, I'm sure

theseed · May 16, 2004

Holy Warrior said:
If you go with the common ancestor necessitated by the evolution theory, you would have a creature that is enough of a chimpanzee to have descendants who will be recognisable as chimps, but also enough of a human to have descendants who are recognisable as humans. Hence the ape-man concept.

If theistic evolution seems right to you, then fair enough. To me it seems rather a roundabout way for God to work, but that's just my opinion. When we get to heaven, we'll find out, I'm sure

Yes, because chimps and humans share 98% of genes.

Bulldog · May 16, 2004

At what point does a hominid become what God intended to be man in his image?

When he becomes a full human, homo sapien.

How so?

Genesis 3.

theseed · May 16, 2004

Bulldog said:
Genesis 3.

You are not explaining the question, but just citing a chapter. And I cite the same chapter and say it is intended to be literal. So prove how Gen. 3 is not literal.

Bulldog · May 17, 2004

Genesis 3 is part of the Adam and Eve story, which I do not believe to be literal. Take a look at this thread, specifically posts 5, 7, and 9:

http://christianforum.com/t115252

I'm not going to explain it all here, but Adam and Eve literally mean Dirt and Hearth-obvious symbology. They are illustrating theological points through parable like stories. Early in Genesis, God is creating was what at the time the Babylonian gods. COincide? I think not.

Donny_B · May 17, 2004

So all references to Adam and Eve and the creation in the Bible are to be disregarded to accomodate Darwin?

jazzbird · May 17, 2004

Cal said:
So you believe that this unique day in Zec, where there is no day or night and has an evening when there is light is the same as the first day in Genesis where there is day and night and no light at evening? It seems like it is the exact opposite of the creation day and any day we have ever seen in the history of the Earth.

No, I don't believe it is the same kind of day. I wasn't trying to equate the two as being alike in composition, meaning that what is described in Zech. is how the days were in Genesis. You say that the Day of the Lord will be unlike any other - and I agree. I was merely saying that the time of creation was also unlike any other time in history.

So do you believe God took billions of years to create a man, and then after He named all the animals on Earth created Eve billions of years later? Or do you believe God took billions of years to just create a man and then after he named all the animals on Earth instantaneously created a women in one day?

No, I don't believe He took billions of years to create a man, but I believe that the entire process of creation took that long. The sixth day begins with the creation of land animals, then man, then woman. If we think of the Lord being intimately involved in forming each of His creatures one by one, rather than thinking them into existence in a literal day, it would take quite some time before He got to man. Old earthers believe Adam was created somewhere around 50,000 years ago. As to your question about how quickly Eve was created, the Bible doesn't say, and I don't know. We know that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and during that time he removed a rib and created the woman.

The thing you brought up about naming the animals, is something that has always puzzled me about the literal 24 hour day theory....how in the world did Adam name all those thousands of animals in less than a day's time. It doesn't make rational sense. Adam was a man - not fallen, that's true - but a man, nonetheless. It would be humanely impossible for him to name all these animals. He was created toward the end of the day, and before he even named the animals he cultivated the garden. What does that leave - a couple hours for him to name them? Don't you think that the task of naming these creatures would be a joyful one and something to revel in? Think of all the interesting and amazing creatures in our world. As Adam is introduced to them, one by one, did he name them the first thing that popped into his head, or did he examine them and observe them in order to come up with the most suitable name. I imagine it would be like a game. The Bible says:

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

We know that God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve. They had an intimacy that we cannot know right now. In this verse I see The Lord and Adam together in the garden, observing all the animals. God says, "look at that animal in the tree, Adam....what would you like to name it?" And Adam muses and finally proclaims it's name, and God and the man continue on, enjoying the time spent together.

As far as Eve goes, Genesis 2 says that God put Adam into the Garden and God saw that he was lonely. How would Adam have time to get lonely in a single day? Especially a day when he was busy with the task of naming all of the animals? It implies that some time has gone by. His exclamation when God gives Eve to him is one of completeness. In some versions he exclaims "At last!" At last? After less than a day?

theseed · May 17, 2004

Bulldog you might be interested in reading this.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html

Bulldog · May 17, 2004

Donny_B said:
So all references to Adam and Eve and the creation in the Bible are to be disregarded to accomodate Darwin?

I certainly do not believe that. Just look at my sig.

I just do not believe ina literal Adam in a literal creation story of Genesis.

Donny_B · May 17, 2004

So, what parts of your signature are not literal besides Adam?

Cal · May 17, 2004

jazzbird said:
No, I don't believe it is the same kind of day. I wasn't trying to equate the two as being alike in composition, meaning that what is described in Zech. is how the days were in Genesis. You say that the Day of the Lord will be unlike any other - and I agree. I was merely saying that the time of creation was also unlike any other time in history.

Jazzbird,

Thank you for debating with me, I am learning so much from the points you are making. I hope we can continue debating together on this and other posts.

I also agree with the point you are making about Zech being "unique" from a 24 hour day. Evolutionists continue to bring up those same verses that you did in Psalms, Daniel, Zech and Peter claiming these "days" are not 24 hour days.

I think you have seen where Psalms, Daniel and Peter are in fact 24 hour days, or at least you must admit there is a supportable position defending how they certainly could be 24 hour days. Which leaves us only with Zech, which it appears we both believe is different than a 24 hour day, and it just makes sense because it is even translated "a unique day." So we have agreement.

But Gen 1 days are never translated "unique day's," never.That's because they are not unique, they have been the same seven day's, making up our week on Earth since creation.

So to compare the "one unique day" that prophesies the ushering in of the return of Jesus Christ, the end of time, and the end of the world as we know it to the other 2,190,000 normal days doesn't seem to be a good comparison.

Since the creation days of Gen 1 are used in Scripture in like fashion 513 additional times as 24 hour days and the plain reading of them is 24 hour day's why would anyone want to use a unique day that the bible says the Earth has never seen before and is known to no one except "the Lord" to define the creation day's or any of the other 2,190,000 24 hour days? It just seems like that would be like trying to put pantyhose on a gorilla. It just isn't going to fit.

Cal · May 17, 2004

jazzbird said:
No, I don't believe He took billions of years to create a man, but I believe that the entire process of creation took that long. The sixth day begins with the creation of land animals, then man, then woman. If we think of the Lord being intimately involved in forming each of His creatures one by one, rather than thinking them into existence in a literal day, it would take quite some time before He got to man. Old earthers believe Adam was created somewhere around 50,000 years ago. As to your question about how quickly Eve was created, the Bible doesn't say, and I don't know. We know that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and during that time he removed a rib and created the woman.

The thing you brought up about naming the animals, is something that has always puzzled me about the literal 24 hour day theory....how in the world did Adam name all those thousands of animals in less than a day's time. It doesn't make rational sense. Adam was a man - not fallen, that's true - but a man, nonetheless. It would be humanely impossible for him to name all these animals. He was created toward the end of the day, and before he even named the animals he cultivated the garden. What does that leave - a couple hours for him to name them? Don't you think that the task of naming these creatures would be a joyful one and something to revel in? Think of all the interesting and amazing creatures in our world. As Adam is introduced to them, one by one, did he name them the first thing that popped into his head, or did he examine them and observe them in order to come up with the most suitable name. I imagine it would be like a game. The Bible says:

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

We know that God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve. They had an intimacy that we cannot know right now. In this verse I see The Lord and Adam together in the garden, observing all the animals. God says, "look at that animal in the tree, Adam....what would you like to name it?" And Adam muses and finally proclaims it's name, and God and the man continue on, enjoying the time spent together.

As far as Eve goes, Genesis 2 says that God put Adam into the Garden and God saw that he was lonely. How would Adam have time to get lonely in a single day? Especially a day when he was busy with the task of naming all of the animals? It implies that some time has gone by. His exclamation when God gives Eve to him is one of completeness. In some versions he exclaims "At last!" At last? After less than a day?

Thanks again for your comments!!

Ok, so what you are proposing is maybe Eve was created thousands of years after Adam. So Adam was thousands of years older than Eve? Boy, talk about a mismatch!

But your particular criticism about Adam naming the animals ignores two very important facts: (1) Adam was much more intelligent than we can even imagine today; and (2) he did not have to name every species of animal, but only the distinct "kinds" of animals that were of immediate interest and access in his daily activities.

Adam had been created in the very "image" of the omniscient God, and that image had not yet been damaged by sin and the curse. Scientists today recognize that modern man actually uses only a very small part of his brain's potential, but Adam, with his mental capacity just then created by a purposeful, wise, loving Creator, perhaps could have used it all! He could surely have recognized, almost instantly, the distinctive qualities of each pair of animals as the different kinds passed before him, and then given them appropriate names.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20).

Note that the animals so named included only the cattle, the birds, and the field animals. Not included were the "beasts of the earth," the "creeping things" and the "fish of the sea" (Genesis 1:24, 26). Thus the vast multitudes of marine animals and insects, as well as reptiles and amphibians, were excluded. The cattle evidently were the domesticable animals (horses, sheep, cows, etc.) and the "beasts of the field" were animals that would live in the wild in the Garden of Eden and its nearby fields. The "beasts of the earth" were presumably to live throughout the earth and would only have infrequent contact with man, so were not among those to be viewed by him at this time. Nor were the "creeping things," those animals built low to the ground, which, while necessary to a functioning ecology, were not of direct, personal importance to human life. In the context, the purpose of this assignment to Adam by God was both to acquaint him with the animals likely to be associated directly with his normal activities and also to show him that, while he was to have dominion over them, none were qualified to be a "helper like him." Only a woman, also made in God's image, could qualify for this role.

Furthermore, he did not have to name all the species of even this limited number of animals, but only the kinds--which is a much broader term, possibly comparable, in many cases, to our modern taxonomic "family." Although we cannot calculate the actual number of animals involved, it was not inordinately large, and Adam, with his vast innate mental abilities, could surely have named them all in a reasonable part of one day's time.

Source: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-212.htm

Bulldog · May 17, 2004

Donny_B said:
So, what parts of your signature are not literal besides Adam?

I absolutly agree with my signature. I see no reason not to to take other parts of the Bible literaly. Genesis 1-5 is written with dialects from differemt time periods, and most likely by different authors. It shoiws God creating the Babylonian gods of the time, to go aganst the Babylonian polytheistic religion. Adam and Eve literaly mean dirt and hearth.

You see? There are reasons that I take Genesis 1-5 symbolically.

Donny_B · May 17, 2004

Bulldog said:
It shoiws God creating the Babylonian gods of the time, to go aganst the Babylonian polytheistic religion.

So, you are polytheistic? Is this allowed in the Christian-only section of the forum?

Bulldog · May 17, 2004

Donny_B said:
So, you are polytheistic? Is this allowed in the Christian-only section of the forum?

I think you misunderstood my post. I am monotheistic.

The Babylonian religion was polytheistic.

In Genesis, their gods are showsn to be created by God, rather than be gods themselves, so the mesege was against The Babylonian polytheistic religion.

jazzbird · May 18, 2004

Cal said:
Which leaves us only with Zech, which it appears we both believe is different than a 24 hour day, and it just makes sense because it is even translated "a unique day." So we have agreement.

For clarification sake, can I ask how long you believe this day to be? I saw in another thread that you were referencing Sproul regarding end times. Are you a partial preterist? I believe this day will last about 3 1/2 years, so that is a considerable length of time. I believe that this day is comprised of many 24 hour days. This is why I relate it the Genesis. I see them both as a lengthy period of time that is referred to in Scripture as a day.

Cal said:
But Gen 1 days are never translated "unique day's," never.That's because they are not unique, they have been the same seven day's, making up our week on Earth since creation.

I don't think that it is important whether creation is referred to in the Bible as "unique." There is no rule in Hebrew that says yowm can't be a period of time and I think there are a lot of other considerations that need to be taken into account. If I didn't believe there was substantial evidence, I wouldn't consider the old earth view based on the definition of 'yowm.' But I feel that there is a lot of evidence that warrants consideration, and this all fits with the Bible if one is willing to consider the possibility that the translation is in fact a period of time and not a series of 24 hour days.

So often I refer only to Gen 1 for the documentation of creation. As I was reading Gen 2 I noticed that 2:4 says This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

From my stance I have no problem reconciling the use of a single "day" of creation since my view allows for a period of time, but I was just curious why you think it might be stated this way, and how you would deal with that verse from a young earth perspective.

Cal said:
Since the creation days of Gen 1 are used in Scripture in like fashion 513 additional times as 24 hour days and the plain reading of them is 24 hour day's why would anyone want to use a unique day that the bible says the Earth has never seen before and is known to no one except "the Lord" to define the creation day's or any of the other 2,190,000 24 hour days? It just seems like that would be like trying to put pantyhose on a gorilla. It just isn't going to fit.

I think I addressed this above, but I'll try to clarify a bit more. You seem to be dwelling a lot on the translation "unique," and while I think that word is very appropriate for the text, it also seems to be a distraction here. The importance of this verse pertaining to our discussion is that it is a period of time that is referred to as a day. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as we're not really getting anywhere. I believe that it is a valid interpretation.

Cal · May 18, 2004

jazzbird said:
For clarification sake, can I ask how long you believe this day to be? I saw in another thread that you were referencing Sproul regarding end times. Are you a partial preterist? I believe this day will last about 3 1/2 years, so that is a considerable length of time. I believe that this day is comprised of many 24 hour days. This is why I relate it the Genesis. I see them both as a lengthy period of time that is referred to in Scripture as a day.

Yes I am a partial preterist and many partial preterist's see these verses as fulfilled at the first coming of Christ. But I gotta tell ya, I'm not so sure. Eschatology is a tough thing, a lot of symbolism, types and hidden meanings that are not always very clear. I'm not sure how long this "unique" day is but it sure sounds very mysterious and.............well.........very unique.

I think it is a mistake to compare this mysteriously unique day with any other day the Earth has ever seen. In addition, I think it is a mistake to think that because there is a unique mysterious day referred to in Scripture that there are many mysteriously unique day's. Because to do so takes the "unique" out of "unique."

jazzbird said:
I don't think that it is important whether creation is referred to in the Bible as "unique." There is no rule in Hebrew that says yowm can't be a period of time and I think there are a lot of other considerations that need to be taken into account. If I didn't believe there was substantial evidence, I wouldn't consider the old earth view based on the definition of 'yowm.' But I feel that there is a lot of evidence that warrants consideration, and this all fits with the Bible if one is willing to consider the possibility that the translation is in fact a period of time and not a series of 24 hour days.

But it is important, what the bible say's and intends is very very important.

The Bible is the revelation of God and it is the most important evidence we have as a source of knowledge. The reason the Scriptures don't refer to the creation day's as unique is because they are not unique. They are ordinary days. Why would you want to try to make them unique?

The reason the Zech verse is referred to in Scripture as "unique" is because it is unique. Unique is not ordinary because it is unique. Unique is referred to as unique because it is out of the ordinary. Why would you want to make this unique day ordinary?

Also, if you don't mind I would like to see this "substantial evidence" you have in the next post, I mean if it's not too much trouble. Because there are hundreds of PhD's in science who see absolutely no evidence for an old Earth at all. Now I know there are numerous atheist scientists with PhD's that refute this but I think it is their biased atheistic worldview that is producing this biased conclusion. By the way speaking of atheist old earth scientists, does it bother you at all to be siding with millions of atheists who also hold to an old earth? Please pardon me here to be so bold to ask but I think this should be some kinda warning signal for you.

jazzbird said:
So often I refer only to Gen 1 for the documentation of creation. As I was reading Gen 2 I noticed that 2:4 says This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

From my stance I have no problem reconciling the use of a single "day" of creation since my view allows for a period of time, but I was just curious why you think it might be stated this way, and how you would deal with that verse from a young earth perspective.

You bring up a perfect example of how day can be used without morning and evening, without a number attached and without the word night. And the reason your verse is so appropriate is because it shows the difference clearly on how a specific 24 hour day is used and how a general period of time is used all in the same place.

Immediately preceeding your verse are these verses:

GEN 1: And the evening and the morning were the first day.

GEN 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.

GEN 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

GEN 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

GEN 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

GEN 1:31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

GEN 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Now your verse:

GEN 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

You see the contrast? The Holy Spirit is revealing how the Earth was made in specific 24 hour days, and then He refers to them all as the day of creation or the time of creation. He could have and would have used this general period of time wording in all the preceeding verses if they were periods of time instead of 24 hour days but He chose not to.

Why?

Same Holy Spirit, written on the exact same day (no pun intended), referencing the exact same event, and written by the exact same person Moses. You really bring out a very good point here.

jazzbird said:
I think I addressed this above, but I'll try to clarify a bit more. You seem to be dwelling a lot on the translation "unique," and while I think that word is very appropriate for the text, it also seems to be a distraction here. The importance of this verse pertaining to our discussion is that it is a period of time that is referred to as a day. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as we're not really getting anywhere. I believe that it is a valid interpretation.

I believe "unique" is a very valid translation as well. And I don't want to discount this translation. What I want to do is compare how day is referred to in one place of Scripture to another place in Scripture in order to let Scripture be the interpretor, not you and me.

So let's see how they compare:

Your verse:

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

Creation verses:

GEN 1: And the evening and the morning were the first day.

GEN 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.

GEN 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

GEN 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

GEN 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

GEN 1:31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

GEN 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

I just don't see any comparison whatsoever, the two simply must be a different.

rmwilliamsll · May 18, 2004

i read a lot on the creation-evolution-design issue, and have been deeply involved in the debate for nearly 2 years now. this is my blog posting on the subject today:

Perhaps one of the best CED discussions i am aware of on the net is via the asa listserv.

they are public archives, and 3 people are talking here, making it difficult to impossible to ask permission of each to repost and discuss here.
so i just removed personal info or identifiers.

>>> >You and I probably agree (along with many others) that there already are
>>> >adequate arguments for accepting evolution that take the Bible and the
>>> >Christian theological tradition seriously. I think it will take some
>>> >one with a very high profile in the religious limelight to make any
>>> >headway quickly. If someone with the clout of a Billy Graham (and there
>>> >doesn't seem to be anybody of his stature to take his place right now)
>>> >would make a point of supporting evolution, things could change
>>> >substantially. But if evolution acceptance has to go pulpit by
>>> >pulpit,church by church, it is going to be a long haul I am afraid.
>>> >The support that the pope has given has not even made much of a dent in
>>> >the general public of the US as far as I can tell. But maybe an
>>> >evangelical "celebrity" might make a difference.
>
>>
>> Is it really necessary that everyone accepts the view that God created
>> using evolution? If so, it gets us in a quagmire of discussions about
>> Bible interpretation. Someone without higher education would benefit very
>> little of the discussion, and those of us who want to show how "evolution"
>> does not contradict our high view of Biblical Truth would forever be busy
>> discussing things while we will be not able to convince those who have not
>> had a thorough scientific education, enforced by a studying of reformed
>> (Calvinistic) philosophy. I tried, but I was unable to do so, though I am
>> still accepted as a good reformed Calvinist, thanks to a discussion led by
>> someone else in our church. But, all those who did not study science
>> and/or philosophy still don't believe that what I say is correct.
>> We all believe, that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Let that be
>> enough. Teaching "evolution" to non-scientists is practically impossible,
>> I think.
This would be fine if anti-evolutionists would agree that evolution
is not a church-dividing issue, that rejection of it is not necessary for
salvation, and - most importantly - if they would stop going on crusades
against evolution. But they don't. As I pointed out in the letter I
included in my post, they make Christianity look stupid to nonbelievers &,
in addition, are responsible for the loss of faith of some Christians when
they discover what the world is really like. ... In addition, opposition to evolution & YEC views tie in
with ideas about the environment which can have serious practical
consequences.

the thread begins with: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200405/0110.html
this particular message is archived at: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200405/0134.html
this is basically the root/faq entry point: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/

I don't think i have seen a more stark, more poignant note on either the necessity of teaching the church about the relationship of our theology to the science of evolutionary theory, nor the sadness and maybe impossibility of persuading the 'man in the pew' next to us each Sunday of it.
The issue is going to be a big deal at GA for the PCA this June (i believe, i don't have evidence to show it), via subscriptionism to the 6 day creation week in the confession. AiG is apparently going to push the 'refuting compromise' book and make the whole thing into a major push in the evangelical churches. Then it is a big election year in the US, and the country is at war, an expensive and by all appearences another potentially losing war. All of which is going to raise the temperature of the political conversation and make positions harder and less able to compromise and even careful listening. Making it a long hot summer.

Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution

Do you believe God created all in six literal days and the earth is < 10,000 yrs old?

Yes

No

Not sure

Well-Known Member

Contributor

In need of direction

Contributor

Don't Tread on Me

Contributor

Don't Tread on Me

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Don't Tread on Me

Well-Known Member

Cal

Guest

Cal

Guest

Don't Tread on Me

Well-Known Member

Don't Tread on Me

Senior Veteran

Cal

Guest

avid reader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency