Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution

[theseed]

I'm tired, so I'm not really sure

Evolution describes a haphazard process whereby we came to be formed by accident. While other humanoind species went extinct. How do you see a Soveriegn God has doing something haphazardly?

There are other things as well that evolutionist believe, but are contrary to the Genesis account.

So to make evolution and popular science mesh withthe bible you either have to reject parts of evolution or reject parts of Genesis as being literal. Now with Gen. 1 and 2 being figurative, why would Gen. 3 be literal?

Do you take the Gen. 3 story figuratively?

 

[Bulldog]

Evolution describes a haphazard process whereby we came to be formed by accident. While other humanoind species went extinct. How do you see a Soveriegn God has doing something haphazardly?

Evolution is not an accident, unless it was not guided. Deity guided evolution is not an accident.

Do you take the Gen. 3 story figuratively?

Yes, but that does not mean I just discard it. It carries an important theological message (the fall of man).

 

[theseed]

Yes, but that does not mean I just discard it. It carries an important theological message (the fall of man).

But if its figurative, then man did not really fall did he? Where did sin come from if this is figurative? And at which point did hominids evolve into a human race that was in the image of God?

 

[jazzbird]

Cal - no need for the apology, really. I totally agree that it is very difficult to read people correctly in this medium. I sensed some sarcasm - and larger type size - and, well, sometimes I can be too sensitive and read too much into things. Please don't feel bad as it was my misunderstanding. I'm not at all upset.

No, you have been very clear in your statements, but now I see the miscommunication! You thought I said that, "nowhere in Scripture is an ordinary day used with the word 'yowm' when it didn't mean a literal day," and I didn't say that.

Actually, I said "ordinal" and not "ordinary." I do understand what you posted previously.

Therefore your example of the most unique day in the history of the world, where there is no night or day, as a description of how a day could not be a 24 hour literal day was puzzling to me. This is an obvious example of when day is used to mean something we have absolutely no idea of what it could mean, because as your verse say's "only the Lord knows it."

Do you believe that The Day of The Lord will be a single day?

It's a bit late for me to go into a detailed response to this right now, but I'm sensing that we have differing views on the end times, and perhaps that is a reason that we are having trouble with this particular Scripture.

It's entirely up to you, and I would love to continue discussing the bankruptcy of the evolution story because it needs to be openly put to shame for all the damage it is doing to the Word of God and to our society today.

Do you think I believe in evolution? ('cause I don't).

When I'm not so tired, I'll address your last post in further detail.

 

[Bulldog]

But if its figurative, then man did not really fall did he?

Yes, and the story shows that. I just do not believe that how he fell is the literal story in the garden.

And at which point did hominids evolve into a human race that was in the image of God?

You'll have to ask that question to a scientist.

 

[Cal]

Do you believe that The Day of The Lord will be a single day?

Do you think I believe in evolution? ('cause I don't).

Phrases like the Day of the Lord and the Day of salvation do not have:

Morning and evening associated with them,
A number associated with them (first day, second day, etc), or
The word night referenced to it.

Therefore, day in these verses is not used like the Genesis account and they do not represent a literal 24 hour day.

The 513 instances in the bible where, just like in Genesis 1, day is used with either the words morning and evening, night or with a numerical reference all mean a literal 24 hour day.

Therefore, why wouldn't it mean a 24 hour literal day in Genesis 1?

I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, I assumed you did. So you don't believe God created the world in six literal days, and He didn't use evolution to create man and animals. Then, how long do you think the Lord took for creation? And why did it take Him so long ?

 

[Donny_B]

I believe in the literal 6-day creation, so voted yes. I also believe in all the other miracles of the Bible.

 

[jazzbird]

Phrases like the Day of the Lord and the Day of salvation do not have:

Morning and evening associated with them,
A number associated with them (first day, second day, etc), or
The word night referenced to it.

Therefore, day in these verses is not used like the Genesis account and they do not represent a literal 24 hour day.

The 513 instances in the bible where, just like in Genesis 1, day is used with either the words morning and evening, night or with a numerical reference all mean a literal 24 hour day.

Therefore, why wouldn't it mean a 24 hour literal day in Genesis 1?

The translation we have posted uses the words 'unique day.' Other translations say 'one day.' Either way, the original Hebrew is 'echod yowm' which is the same words used in Genesis 1 for 'one day.'

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

It is a numerical reference in Zech. It's the same as in Gen. 1.

My understanding of The Day of The Lord is that it will be a period of days - regular 24 hour days like we have now. The difference is there will be catastrophic events that cause changes in the light and dark.

You say the Day of The Lord is unlike any other time in the earth's history, but I would say the same about creation.

Yowm can be legitimately translated as a period of time. Just because the Genesis account is an uncommon occurance does not mean that a period of time cannot be an accurate translation. The Hebrew allows for it. If we look at each day as a period of time, we see the numbers as a way to divide what kind of creation took place during that time. I think it is important to remember that God's perspective is much different from our own. We look at the creation account from our own earthly point of view, yet perhaps it is written from God's point of view.

How long is a day in Genesis Chapter 1? Consider this…the Bible says a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to man (II Peter 3:8). Remember, Adam was created on the sixth day, and these “days” were as God sees days, because only God was here…not man. Man was only here at the very end of the sixth day.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter how I interpret the word day in human languages…the question is, ‘What is a day to God?’ Think about this…if you are in the middle of space, and you are the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal God of the universe, who never sleeps, then what is a “day” to you? If you are eternal, what meaning does time have for you? Wow, there goes another million years! It won’t matter because you have billions more!

I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, I assumed you did. So you don't believe God created the world in six literal days, and He didn't use evolution to create man and animals. Then, how long do you think the Lord took for creation? And why did it take Him so long ?

It seems to be a common misconception that old earth creationism and theistic evolution are synonymous, when in fact they have very little in common beyond the shared belief that the earth is very old.

Looking back at the beginning of this thread, it is a bit misleading. I based my answer on the poll question: Do you believe God created all in six literal days and the earth is < 10,000 yrs old? I said 'no' because I believe the earth is much older than that. However, at the time I did not pay much attention to the title of this thread which is "Theistic Evolution vs. Creationism." I am a creationist, but I am not a young earther, as you are. I guess technically my view would be called Progressive Creationism.

So, to give you a better perspective on where I'm coming from:

• I believe God created the world over the period of several billion years in the sequence described in Genesis.
• I believe that each species was created uniquely and did not evolve.
• I believe that Scripture and Science are compatible.
• I believe there are many observations we can make in the natural world that give proof of a Creator, and give proof that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years.

Hope that helps a little.

Reference:
http://www.answersincreation.org/old.htm

 

[jazzbird]

Also, about the grass......I just can't let the grass arguement die. Sorry for the bad pun. Anyway....

Your scripture from James talks about the grass being burnt by the sun, however my verse from Psalms does not. It only says that the grass fades and withers in the evening. So, I still think that my interpretation is as legit as yours. I don't think it's that important, but I just gotta have the last word.



Cal - BTW, I shot you a pm, just wanted to make sure you got it.

 

[theseed]

Yes, and the story shows that. I just do not believe that how he fell is the literal story in the garden.

Well, I think that if there was a literal Christ, then their was a literal Adam, and Christ refers to Adam and Even as if it were true. As well as Jonah and other things.

If man fell another way, then why is that not in the bible?

 

[Bulldog]

If man fell another way, then why is that not in the bible?

It is. It's just thatit is not presented literaly.

 

[Cal]

The translation we have posted uses the words 'unique day.' Other translations say 'one day.' Either way, the original Hebrew is 'echod yowm' which is the same words used in Genesis 1 for 'one day.'

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.



It is a numerical reference in Zech. It's the same as in Gen. 1.



My understanding of The Day of The Lord is that it will be a period of days - regular 24 hour days like we have now. The difference is there will be catastrophic events that cause changes in the light and dark.

You say the Day of The Lord is unlike any other time in the earth's history, but I would say the same about creation.



Yowm can be legitimately translated as a period of time. Just because the Genesis account is an uncommon occurance does not mean that a period of time cannot be an accurate translation. The Hebrew allows for it. If we look at each day as a period of time, we see the numbers as a way to divide what kind of creation took place during that time. I think it is important to remember that God's perspective is much different from our own. We look at the creation account from our own earthly point of view, yet perhaps it is written from God's point of view.

Translators have rendered the Hebrew expression yom 'echad in verse 7 into English in a variety of ways: "for it will be a unique day" (New American Standard Bible, New International Version); "and there shall be continuous day" (New Revised Standard Version); "it will be continuous day" (Revised English Bible); or "and the day shall be one." The "continuous day," or "one day," of the eschatological future will be one in which the normal rhythm of evening and morning, day and night, will change so that in that eschatological day there shall be "light even at the evening" (verse 7).

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.

This is one of the most powerful Scriptures in the entire Bible which actually defines not only what a day is but what all days must do. Now when evening comes it is always dark, always has been. But here we have an evening come when it is light. This is not only not normal for what happens in the evening, this passage says that it never happened.

This passage is also referring to the Lord's return so it encompasses ALL time where when evening comes it would be dark, EXCEPT on this UNIQUE Day. The only way this could be unique is if there were NO other days ever that when evening came it would be light. So this would have to include the first six days of Creation Week (and the Seventh for that matter too). But even Genesis itself records that the evening part of the day was dark. This is astounding, because it leaves NO days throughout history from the beginning of Creation that were not days as we know them. This puts a absolute lock on young earth creation, based on Scripture, therefore, refuting old earth theology and cosmology.

GEN 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



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.



Sources: http://www.therickabys.com/sda/CreaCatasCh2g.html and: http://www.webedelic.com/church/young.htm

It seems to be a common misconception that old earth creationism and theistic evolution are synonymous, when in fact they have very little in common beyond the shared belief that the earth is very old.

Looking back at the beginning of this thread, it is a bit misleading. I based my answer on the poll question: Do you believe God created all in six literal days and the earth is < 10,000 yrs old? I said 'no' because I believe the earth is much older than that. However, at the time I did not pay much attention to the title of this thread which is "Theistic Evolution vs. Creationism." I am a creationist, but I am not a young earther, as you are. I guess technically my view would be called Progressive Creationism.



So, to give you a better perspective on where I'm coming from:



I believe God created the world over the period of several billion years in the sequence described in Genesis.

I believe that each species was created uniquely and did not evolve.

I believe that Scripture and Science are compatible.

I believe there are many observations we can make in the natural world that give proof of a Creator, and give proof that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years.

You’re right it was a little misleading and the arguments you used are the standard arguments for theistic evolution as well so I just assumed you were arguing for evolution.


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?



Thanks for clearing everything up so well!

 

[Donny_B]

The geneaology of Jesus (through Mary) given in Luke chapter 3 traces His lineage from Adam and Noah.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

For those who try to accomodate evolution, what part of this geneaology is "not literal"?

 

[Bulldog]

The geneaology of Jesus (through Mary) given in Luke chapter 3 traces His lineage from Adam and Noah.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

For those who try to accomodate evolution, what part of this geneaology is "not literal"?

The genealogy is completly literal, because Adam did indeed exist.

Many Rabbis will tell you that Adam was the first Jewis person, and thta is why he appears in geneologies.

 

[Cal]

Also, about the grass......I just can't let the grass arguement die. Sorry for the bad pun. Anyway....

Your scripture from James talks about the grass being burnt by the sun, however my verse from Psalms does not. It only says that the grass fades and withers in the evening. So, I still think that my interpretation is as legit as yours. I don't think it's that important, but I just gotta have the last word.



Cal - BTW, I shot you a pm, just wanted to make sure you got it.

The Bible is the best translator of itself. We only mess things up. I am trying to show you why the grass in Israel fades and withers by evening. The Holy Spirit in James say's it is the sun.

Of course this just makes sense from what we know about Palestinian grass. Your first interpretation said "this never happens" but then you changed your interpretation to say "it is just not normal." Well now we know it not only happens but it is normal and a recurring event for Palestinian grass.

Therefore the word day in this verse does mean a 24 hour day:

PSA 90:6 In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away.

Thanks for responding to my pm, I got your response and you are too kind!

 

[Donny_B]

The genealogy is completly literal, because Adam did indeed exist.

Many Rabbis will tell you that Adam was the first Jewis person, and thta is why he appears in geneologies.

Judah (in whom the Jews get their name), a son of Jacob (Israel), came about 2200 years after Adam.

 

[theFijian]

Doesn't the notion of Adam comming from monkeys undo the orgin of Sin?

Evolution does not state that man came from monkeys, it says that we had a common ancestor. This a (very) common misconception.

What about God being made in the image of a monkey?

What on earth do you mean?

Andy

 

[theseed]

Evolution does not state that man came from monkeys, it says that we had a common ancestor. This a (very) common misconception.

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

What on earth do you mean?

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

 

[theseed]

It is. It's just thatit is not presented literaly.

How so?

 

[theseed]

Judah (in whom the Jews get their name), a son of Jacob (Israel), came about 2200 years after Adam.

Yes, and the word "semetic" comes from Sem or Shem one of Noah's children. Hence, both Jews and Gentiles descend from Adam. Also, Paul says that the sin entered the whole human race through one man, not just the Jewish race.