• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Discussion on Evolution-Creation controversy

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Hello everyone, I am new in this Christian Forums. I would like to stimulate discussion regarding the Evolution-Creationism controversy. My purpose for initiating this discussion is because in my daily life, I often encounter vocal critics and proponents for/against evolution, and I would like to resolve this issue if possible.

I will keep this discussion as precise as possible, and thus put forth a few questions for you people to discuss.

1) What is your view on biological evolution?

2) Is biological evolution in conflict with the Bible?

3) How is the Genesis text supposed to be interpreted?

I look forward to people replying, and I would like to thank in advance everyone who replies to me. :D
 

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Hello everyone, I am new in this Christian Forums. I would like to stimulate discussion regarding the Evolution-Creationism controversy. My purpose for initiating this discussion is because in my daily life, I often encounter vocal critics and proponents for/against evolution, and I would like to resolve this issue if possible.

I will keep this discussion as precise as possible, and thus put forth a few questions for you people to discuss.

1) What is your view on biological evolution?

2) Is biological evolution in conflict with the Bible?

3) How is the Genesis text supposed to be interpreted?

I look forward to people replying, and I would like to thank in advance everyone who replies to me. :D

First of all, hello fellow Presbyterian and welcome to the CF Science forums. :)

Now to answer your questions.

  1. I have no problem with biological evolution.
  2. It is only in conflict when one takes Genesis 1 and 2 literally.
  3. I look at it as an allegory. That way I don't have to lie to myself or make things up I know to be wrong to account for a literal interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟43,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello everyone,
Hello, Iris Paint! :wave:
I am new in this Christian Forums.
We all were at one time, my friend! Roll up your sleeves and dig right in! You've got the best seat on the Net, right here!
I would like to stimulate discussion regarding the Evolution-Creationism controversy.
Good for you! We won't disappoint you, that's for sure!
My purpose for initiating this discussion is because in my daily life, I often encounter vocal critics and proponents for/against evolution, and I would like to resolve this issue if possible.
Sweet! You've got one vocal critic right here! I'm not sure which way you're leaning on this issue (I haven't read your profile yet), but I'm glad to see you're seeking resolution!
I will keep this discussion as precise as possible, and thus put forth a few questions for you people to discuss.
Thank you! I shall endeavor to do the same with my answers!
1) What is your view on biological evolution?
It works to a point, then it hits a barrier that it cannot go beyond. I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution; in other words: adaptation.
2) Is biological evolution in conflict with the Bible?
Yes and no.

Picture biological evolution sitting on a shelf with two bookends: abiogenesis & macroevolution. I believe both to be against a clear, literal interpretation of the Word of God.
3) How is the Genesis text supposed to be interpreted?
Literally.
I look forward to people replying, and I would like to thank in advance everyone who replies to me. :D
You're most welcome! :)
 
Upvote 0

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Whoa.. not as many replies as I have hoped, but thanks for all the people kindly bothering to reply :D

@ AV1611VET: Well, I partially disagree with you. I think there is good evidence for macro-evolution, so I think its better to accept macroevolution than deny it. Take for example the transitional fossil for the archaeopteryx, a transition between dinosaurs and birds. It has feathers, like modern birds, yet it is classified as a dinosaur. Furthermore, if you look at the anatomy of modern birds, their skin is very alike to reptiles, another piece of evidence for the concept that birds result in dinosaurs, which are obviously reptiles.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whoa.. not as many replies as I have hoped, but thanks for all the people kindly bothering to reply :D
You'll find there are people here with a lot of knowledge! I am impressed with this site, and I consider it my one-stop shop for all things scientific and theological!

(Am I a salesman or what? ^_^)
@ AV1611VET: Well, I partially disagree with you. I think there is good evidence for macro-evolution, so I think its better to accept macroevolution than deny it. Take for example the transitional fossil for the archaeopteryx, a transition between dinosaurs and birds. It has feathers, like modern birds, yet it is classified as a dinosaur. Furthermore, if you look at the anatomy of modern birds, their skin is very alike to reptiles, another piece of evidence for the concept that birds result in dinosaurs, which are obviously reptiles.
Thank you for the reply.

The technical term I like to use for this is: Ontological Reductionism.

Ontological Reductionism says God used a minimum of parts in His creation.

That's why everything looks like it came from a common ancestor, when in fact, it came from a Common Designer.

A good example is a checkered board, which can be used for either Checkers or Chess.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hello everyone, I am new in this Christian Forums. I would like to stimulate discussion regarding the Evolution-Creationism controversy. My purpose for initiating this discussion is because in my daily life, I often encounter vocal critics and proponents for/against evolution, and I would like to resolve this issue if possible.

I will keep this discussion as precise as possible, and thus put forth a few questions for you people to discuss.

1) What is your view on biological evolution?

2) Is biological evolution in conflict with the Bible?

3) How is the Genesis text supposed to be interpreted?

I look forward to people replying, and I would like to thank in advance everyone who replies to me. :D

1. My opinion of ToE is that it is the best explanation of all available evidence to explain biodistribution and biodiversity of life on earth.

2. Yes.

3. G1/2 is to be interpreted as it was meant, allegorical myth to explain biological processes that were not understood at the time.
 
Upvote 0

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Thanks to both FrenchyBearPaw and AV1611VET for answering, very interesting views :D

To FrenchyBearPaw: Yes, I certainly agree that biological evolution is the best available explanation for the diversity of life we encounter today, however regarding your answer to my second and third question, I disagree.

I believe that the premise that ''evolution and Christianity are incompatible'' which is held by both Creationists and atheists, is questionable at best. Indeed there are many Christians who accept the full extent of biological evolution while remaining faithful conservative Christians. These are what are known as theistic evolutionists. Take for example, Francis Collins, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Asa Gray.

Dobzhansky was an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and furthermore, he was an evolutionary biologist. Either he is too stupid to see contradictions between faith and science ( which is as probable as me having three arms) , or more likely, he could reconcile the so-called ''contradictions'' between faith and evolution.

Regarding your view on Genesis, I think you are mistaken. Genesis 1/2 are not intended to ''explain biological processes that were not understood at the time'', as you claimed. Genesis 1/2 are intended to acknowledge and glorify God for being the Cause of the entire universe. Yes, Genesis cannot and does not explain biology, but neither did Genesis attempt to explain biology. Genesis is interpreted as allegory not because ''Christians must reinterpret the Bible to suit science evidence'', but rather because the style, the sentence structures all point to an poetic style of writing, and hence, cannot be taken literally. Indeed, a conservative pastor I talked with told me that Genesis is best interpreted as allegorical. And this pastor is not well versed with the Theory of Evolution. St Augustine, an ancient theologian also interpreted Genesis as allegorical. It is not science that causes Genesis to be interpreted in an allegorical manner, but rather evidence gleaned from the style of writing found in Genesis.

In conclusion, its possible to accept the absolute truth of the Bible while accepting the Theory of Evolution in its full extent.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
1) What is your view on biological evolution?

2) Is biological evolution in conflict with the Bible?

3) How is the Genesis text supposed to be interpreted?
Hi Iris,

1) Irrefutable fact, backed up by an ever-increasing mountain of evidence.
2) Like the majority of Christians, I don't believe it is. If you take the OT as allegorical, then there is no direct conflict.
3) Allegorically, if at all :p
 
Upvote 0

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
To AVC1611VET,thanks for answering back :) My patience has been rewarded. I was hoping for new views regarding this controversy from all factions. This is a pretty new argument for Creationism that I have seen.

However, I do have a few questions.

Firstly, does macro-evolution necessarily contradict Christianity? Indeed, as I have pointed out, many Christians accept full extent of evolution. Asa Gray, a Presbyterian, accepts evolution, and he was a devout Christian. He was also dubbed as the ''greatest botanist of the 19th century''. If you find contradictions, can you list them here?

Secondly, what is your opinion of theistic evolution? ( which I think you might have guessed, I am a supporter of)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To AVC1611VET,thanks for answering back :)
You're welcome! :)
My patience has been rewarded.
Glad to hear it!
I was hoping for new views regarding this controversy from all factions.
Like I said, this is your one-stop shop for all things theological! You'll get a variety of ideas from a Christian perspective here; from well-meaning and scholarly defenders of the Faith!
This is a pretty new argument for Creationism that I have seen.
I believe it is "new," because my interpretation of Scripture relies heavily on the conclusions that scientists come to; even to the point where my pastor and I disagree (he is a YEC, and I am Embedded Age). As science changes with new discoveries, it looks like my theology changes with it; but in reality, my theology stays the same, only the details change.

For example, I used to say God created 9 planets in our solar system; but I didn't realize that scientists were calling things "planets" without even having an official definition of "planet" on the books.

Today, I should say God created 8 planets in our solar system, but right now I'm holding out to see if Pluto wins its position back as #9.
However, I do have a few questions.
I'll do my best to answer them. :)
Firstly, does macro-evolution necessarily contradict Christianity?
Yes and no. There are two types of "Christianity" ... the broad and the narrow. In its broadest sense, encompassing all sects, macroevolution is compatible with Theistic (or Guided) Evolution; mainly for those who take Genesis 1 allegorically.

For those like me, who take Genesis 1 literally, evolution, macro- or micro-, plays no part.
Indeed, as I have pointed out, many Christians accept full extent of evolution.
Yes, they do.
Asa Gray, a Presbyterian, accepts evolution, and he was a devout Christian.
I have a feeling, in the times we are in, that those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is a dwindling breed.

I look at science and Scripture like a teeter-totter, with the Bible on one end and a science book on the other.

In the times before Isaac Newton, the teeter-totter was horizontal; but in today's society, the science book is much heavier than the Bible, but as the science end falls, it lifts up the Bible even higher (if that makes sense), and makes those who adhere to Its teachings stand out more (mainly for ridicule).
He was also dubbed as the ''greatest botanist of the 19th century''.
I'm really not familiar with Asa Gray, but I'll certainly take your word on it. I believe one of the greatest men to walk this planet since Biblical times was Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
If you find contradictions, can you list them here?
Some time ago, I started a thread called: 4 Reasons against Evolution ...
1. NOT ENOUGH TIME
  • Using the Bible to calculate time, one concludes that the earth has gone around the sun roughly 6100 times. This is much too short a timespan for evolution to have occurred.
2. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
  • [bible]Genesis 1:31[/bible]
3. NO ANIMALS DIED PRIOR TO THE FALL
  • [bible]Romans 5:12[/bible]
4. JESUS BELIEVED IN CREATION - NOT EVOLUTION
  • [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]
... in which I detailed Biblical reasons for being against evolution.
Secondly, what is your opinion of theistic evolution?
Since you asked, and since I think you can take my answer in a mature way, I'll be straightforward with you and say that I think Theistic Evolution falls under the purview of:

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
( which I think you might have guessed, I am a supporter of)

And I certainly don't hold that against you. We'll have all eternity to discuss it in Heaven! :)
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
To AVC1611VET,thanks for answering back :) My patience has been rewarded. I was hoping for new views regarding this controversy from all factions. This is a pretty new argument for Creationism that I have seen.

However, I do have a few questions.

Firstly, does macro-evolution necessarily contradict Christianity? Indeed, as I have pointed out, many Christians accept full extent of evolution. Asa Gray, a Presbyterian, accepts evolution, and he was a devout Christian. He was also dubbed as the ''greatest botanist of the 19th century''. If you find contradictions, can you list them here?

Secondly, what is your opinion of theistic evolution? ( which I think you might have guessed, I am a supporter of)


Seriously I would not pay too much attention to AVET. His only weapon is the Bible and his interpretation of it is his alone.

Evolution is not a controversial subject in science at all. The number of loonies who do not believe it is truly insignificant. If there were not a huge number of uneducated people that they can prey on this so called controversy would have disappeared one hundred years ago.

Man's shared descent with other apes has been confirmed by many different paths. The story of Adam and Eve is at best an allegory. We know later events in the Bible did not happen. There was not Noah's flood. There is no need for a tower of Babel. It's idea is ridiculous on several approaches. In fact the first two books of the Bible have been shown to be fallacious.

It drives AVET nuts since Jesus supposedly referred to Adam and Noah, though again, those are at best third or even fourth hand tales that occurred about 50 years before they were written down. Stories always grow with the telling.
 
Upvote 0

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
I would like to respond to AVC1611VET first.

I agree with you that there are two views on interpreting Genesis 1/2. The first one is allegorical, and is held by Theistic evolutionist Christians. Second one is held by Creationists, who accept a literal interpretation.

I also believe that you prefer a literal interpretation because you think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is more respectful to the Bible than an allegorical interpretation. Personally, I disagree. Indeed take a look at this verse:''the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being'' ( Gen 2: 7)

God does not need to literally ''breathe'', which is implying God has lungs of some sort. God is non-material, and has no breathing apparatus, hence a literalistic interpretation would be inaccurate. Thus this verse is best taken metaphorically. Just like how Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches'', he is not literally claiming to sprout leaves and photosynthesize. He is using metaphor. Likewise, I believe Genesis 1/2 are metaphorical. As I have mentioned earlier, a pastor I conversed with stated that Genesis 1/2 is best interpreted as allegorical, and mind you, he does not agree with evolution.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is not the best way to respect the Bible's complete objective truth. The best way is actually to interpret the Bible as the author of the text intends the reader to understand it! I am not ''reinterpreting the Bible in favour of science!'' :)

Now, I will reply to your ''4 reasons against evolution''. Remember I wrote that I find the premise that ''evolution and Christianity are incompatible'' a questionable premise? I will attempt a response to your 4 reasons, and I look forward to your reply !

1) NOT ENOUGH TIME.

Firstly, calculating ultra-literally using the English Bible, you will certainly reach that conclusion. However, its best to peer into the context, culture, and word usage in the original Hebrew format of Genesis to correctly interpret the Bible. An ultraliteral reading of the Bible may, ironically, be honestly but wrongly interpreting Christian Scriptures. As I mentioned in the aforementioned paragraphs, an allegorical interpretation is best for the Genesis texts from a solely Biblical perspective. A full explanation would be too long here. But I can give some evidence. The English Bible word ''day'' is ''yom'' in Hebrew. Now this word has several meanings. I can hardly articulate everything I know here, indeed it would fill pages. But you might want to consider this site:




2)THERE IS NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

Forgive me, but of all the 4 reasons you postulated, this is by far the weakest, as it is a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

Firstly, Evolution is not about ''improvement''. If it is, then yes, Evolution contradicts God's Word as God creates all things as good. Evolution is, to accurately define it, the process of how organic life on Earth came to its present state today. We can see that evolution causes living organisms to adapt and change over time, into new species eventually. Firstly, you are making the mistaken assumption that ''change in species'' implies that ''God's creation is not good enough, and that the species have to change in order to become better''. Indeed I have seen this fallacious argument before. The species changes merely to adapt to a new environment, the species does not change because it is created flawed. In fact think about it, wouldn't a Good God prefer to create living things that can adapt and change to suit the environment, hence ensuring the survival of its own species, rather than create living things that are unable to evolve beyond their own species, and hence, cannot survive on Earth as well as evolvable/adaptable creatures? I think living things are created flawed if they are unable to evolve and hence adapt to their environment!


3) NO ANIMALS DIED PRIOR TO THE FALL.

You interpreted the verse that you graciously provided wrongly:( Romans 5:12)Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— (NIV Version)

Your conclusion is that ''no animals died before the fall'' and you cited this Bible verse to support your conclusion. I think that it should be obvious enough that what Paul of Tarsus ( the author of Romans) said only applies to humans, not animals. Evidence:in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. Paul wrote ''death came to all people'', he did not wrote ''death came to all living things'' nor did he write ''death came to all animals''. Thus the Fall is only about human death, not animal death. Even if evolution asserts animals died before the Fall, it is not incompatible with the doctrine of the Fall.

4)JESUS BELIEVED IN CREATION - NOT EVOLUTION
  • [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]
I have seen this Biblical argument before, however, I would like you to consider this website to address your fourth argument.
 
Upvote 0

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Ugh. I can't post links to the sites I want to show you. My apologies.

Please Google ''Mark 10:6 evolution'' and enter the Reasons To Believe website.

Please Google ''Old Earth Ministries'' regarding the Hebrew word ''yom''. I find this site to be reliable, as my conservative church pastors also agreed with this website that the Hebrew word for day cannot be interpreted as literal 24 hour days.
 
Upvote 0

Iris Paint

Newbie
Jan 11, 2013
9
1
✟30,136.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Here is the interpretation for Mark 10:6 from Reasons To Believe. Apparently, Jesus did believe in Creation, just not the brand of Creation you espouse. I find Young-Earth Creationists' intepretations of Scripture to be flawed. No offence meant. By the way, I enjoyed talking to you :) Thanks!

YOUNG-EARTH ARGUMENT

Young-earth creationists believe Adam and Eve were created on the sixth 24-hour day after the creation of the universe in Genesis 1:1. This means the universe existed only about 130 hours before they were created.2 Therefore, the earth cannot be billions of years old because human existence only dates back thousands of years and Adam and Eve were on the earth immediately after the universe was created. They argue this is confirmed by Jesus’ words in Mark 10:6 that God made Adam and Eve from the beginning of creation because Jesus used the word “beginning” to refer to Genesis 1:1, the time when God created the universe. Henry M. Morris states it this way: “The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was our Creator
before He became our Savior (John 1:1-3,10; Colossians 1:16; etc.). But Christ thought that it was ‘from the beginning of the creation’ (not billions of years after the beginning of the creation) that ‘God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6).”3
The ancient creation (old-earth) model maintains the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago, the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago and Adam and Eve were created about 50,000 years ago. This places Adam and Eve near the end of the history of the universe, not the beginning. Nearly all the earth’s history, with its vast eons, along with countless generations of living things, would have
passed away before God created Adam and Eve and brought them together in the first marriage. If this is true young-earth creationists ask, how Jesus could say that God made them “from the beginning of creation?”4
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT

Adam and Eve were the last creatures created by God–they came at the end of the creation process. There is a parallel passage in Matthew 19:4: “Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning ‘made them male and female’?” There is no parallel to this passage in Luke or John. So what does Jesus mean in Mark 10:6? By comparing Mark with Matthew, the first thing to note is “from the beginning of
creation” is equivalent to the simple phrase “from the beginning.” What “beginning” is Jesus speaking of? The immediate context indicates he was speaking of the beginning of human history, when marriage was first instituted at the creation, not necessarily of the beginning of the creation process. This interpretation is confirmed by a study of the phrase in Mark. In the Greek New Testament the words “of creation” are a single word, ktise-os, from the noun ktisis, meaning “creation.” This word is in the genitive case in Greek (Greek has five cases in which nouns may be found, determined by the ending on the noun and
each case is used in particular ways in the syntax of a sentence).
The genitive case often is translated in English Bibles with the word “of” in front of the noun. It is used in a number of different syntactical ways. Grammarians have developed names for these different syntactical uses. For example, in each following phrase the second noun would be in the genitive case:
  • “son of Zebedee” (genitive of relationship or origin–tells where the son came from)
  • “boats of Simon” (genitive of possession–tells who owns the boats)
  • “wealth of the world” (genitive of description–tells what kind of wealth)
  • “temple of his body” (genitive of apposition; also called epexegetic genitive–identifies what the temple is)
  • “one of the boats” (partitive genitive–shows the group the “one” came from)
  • “gospel of Paul” (subjective genitive–the gospel Paul preached–shows Paul as the subject of the action)
  • “zeal of God” (objective genitive–zeal directed to God–shows God as the object of the action)
When we look at this list of common uses of the genitive case, we can see that the phrase “the beginning of creation” can be interpreted in several ways. In order to select the proper interpretation, one must examine the context and then compare the result with the general teaching of the Scripture.5
In Mark 10:6 the most likely use of the genitive is the genitive of apposition (or epexegetic genitive), such as the phrase “the temple of his body” (John 2:21).6 The second word refers to the same object as the first word, only identifying it with a different noun. This usage employs a second noun, in the genitive case, to
further identify a more general or ambiguous noun. In Mark 10:6, the word “beginning” could be understood in a number of ways: for example, the beginning of humanity with Adam, the beginning of
the Hebrew people with Abraham, or the beginning of Israel as a nation with Moses. Jesus clarifies the word “beginning” by identifying it as the creation of humanity, the time of the very first humans, Adam and Eve. In Mark 10:6 Jesus would be saying, “In the beginning, that is, at the creation, God made them male and female.” The use of the genitive in this place makes perfect sense, agrees with Matthew
19:4, and follows standard grammatical forms. By using the words “beginning” and “creation,” Jesus is contrasting the original creation ordinance of marriage from the much later legislation of
Moses, with its incorporation of divorce laws. He is emphasizing the ancient origin of marriage and its vow to lifelong faithfulness,as opposed to the relatively recent legislation of Moses permitting divorce.7
To claim Jesus is referring to the first part of the creation process itself (a kind of partitive use of the genitive) introduces unnecessary confusion. Jesus and his Jewish audience knew Adam and Eve appeared at the end of the creation process. The “beginning” he is speaking of is not the beginning of the history of the universe, the stars and galaxies; it is the beginning of human history with Adam and Eve. Therefore, this passage is not talking about the beginning of the universe and provides no evidence for a
recent creation.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟98,077.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Welcome to the forum, Iris.
]1) What is your view on biological evolution? [/quote]
It is a distortion of an observed process called adaptation; a conservative process whereby useful genetic information is passed on to subsequent generations, deleterious information is deleted, some information is changed and new genetic information is never introduced or encoded into the reproductive system.
Is biological evolution in conflict with the Bible?
It can be, if one takes the observed process to use as evidence of a never observed increase in complexity; or if one assumes that “hopeful miracles” of benevolent mutations somehow created all living things from one magic little supercell that managed to spring up from nowhere. To believe the teachings of geological evolution you have to deny the Great Flood; an event which Jesus confirmed not only by mentioning Noah by name and describing the immorality of the world at the time, but also by stating that the Scriptures were 100% true as written. To believe in two conflicting ideas, you must have true faith in neither.
How is the Genesis text supposed to be interpreted?
I would interpret it just as Jesus did; as the words of God recorded by Moses.
Take for example the transitional fossil for the archaeopteryx, a transition between dinosaurs and birds. It has feathers, like modern birds, yet it is classified as a dinosaur.

Actually, it IS a dinosaur because it coexisted with other dinosaurs and didn’t fly. It was simply a dinosaur with feathers. Like all dinosaurs, it had neither ancestors nor descendents that looked significantly different than it did. Dinosaurs begat dinosaurs. Birds begat birds.


It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the [Oregon State University] experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales.

Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse.

This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."

However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion -- including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and -- in the ancient past -- dinosaurs.

The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution....
source
I find this site to be reliable, as my conservative church pastors also agreed with this website that the Hebrew word for day cannot be interpreted as literal 24 hour days.
“Evening” („ereb) and “morning” (boqer) are used with “day” (yowm) outside of Genesis chapter 1 in the Old Testament 23 times. Included in that number, “evening” and “morning” are found 8 times with “day” and a “numerical modifier.” Without exception, when “day” is used with “evening” and “morning”, it always refers to an ordinary day.
Source


Somebody is leading you down a primrose pathway, because the terms used without exception always mean one and only one calendar day. You might go back and re-read the Forth Commandment to get a better understanding of the time frame God used.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0