MyChristianForumID said:
Further to my statements regarding my dis-belief in the evolution of the feather and the giraffe's neck I would like to discuss some scriptures which refute evolution the way I interpret them.
As you note, the meaning of scripture depends on the interpretation. Furthermore, no scripture has any bearing on the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is not going to go away because of how you interpret scripture. So if your interpretation of scripture does not accommodate objective evidence, it is likely that your interpretation of scripture needs to be revised.
However, FWIW, I will suggest some alternate interpretations of the passages cited. This exercise, however, is meaningless in determining whether or not evolution has happened. That determination is made from the evidence, not from anyone's interpretation of scripture, including mine.
Death reigned only after Adam sinned. Death reigned over all others after him because of his sin even if they broke no command of God. Adam and Moses are unified together confirming Adam and Moses are real people. Sin brought death. Evolution theory requires that Adams father also died, therefore evolution theory is false.
First, the existence of fossils of species which became extinct before any evidence of human existence shows that this is factually incorrect. So any literal interpretation of this text
ipso facto contradicts the reality of nature, which is God's creation. Hence, any literal interpretation of this text contradicts God's own revelation.
How then can this text be interpreted so as not to contradict the facts? Some have suggested that the death which did not exist before Adam was spiritual death. Not until a creature capable of spiritual life existed could spiritual death occur.
Others hold that Adam is not to be understood as an individual but as generic 'ha-adam' (the term consistently used in Genesis 2-4) so that we are all Adam.
btw the linkage of Adam's name with that of Moses does not confirm the historical existence of Adam. Such a conclusion shows that you are following modern categories of thought, not taking into account the different way of thinking common to ancient peoples. Paul, with his rabbinic training, would not have made such a naive error. He would be quite familiar with the rabbinic mystical teaching on Adam Kadmon (roughly, Adam as consisting of all of humanity, as that which makes all of us human.)
Jesus Christ also confirms creation of Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation. Jesus Christ also quoting from Genesis chapter 2 confirming chapter 2 is not a mythological account.
Nothing Jesus says here confirms the historicity of Genesis 2. It is perfectly appropriate for a teacher to refer to the characters of a well-known myth to make a point about marriage.
And scientifically, it is also agreed that humans have existed as male and female since their beginning.
Jesus Christ also confirms the flood account as historical fact in the quote above. Jesus confirms the view that Genesis 1-11 are literal accounts. This means the whole earth was re-populated from scratch after the flood. Since evolution scientists discount the global flood it affects their interpretation of evidence.
Ditto. Speaking about a myth does not magically turn it into history.
And it is not "discounting" the flood that affects scientific interpretation of evidence. It was the evidence which convinced leading Christian geologists and theologians of the 19th century that the flood was not global. Further evidence has confirmed what was known as early as 1835. Please note the date. Evolution was not yet a scientific issue, so the conclusions about the flood were reached without any pre-suppositions based on a book not published until 1859.
A good many staunchly evangelical Christians who rejected evolution agreed the geological evidence was not compatible with a global flood. For example, Hugh Millar, a leading light of the Free Church movement in Scotland, and editor of its monthly publication,
The Witness, was also an amateur geologist who studied and eventually published a book on "the Old Red Sandstone" of Britain. An earlier version of the book was published in serial form in
The Witness beginning in 1843--again with no reference to evolution or any pre-suppositions which included evolution. In fact, almost all the leading evangelical theologians of the late 19th century were old-earth creationists who were convinced by the geological evidence of the antiquity of the earth and the regional nature of the flood. That is the creationist tradition as I knew it in my teens. I didn't know that anybody still embraced young-earth creationism until the 1980s
You can learn about the history of religious attitudes to science in the 19th century in a book called
Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David N. Livingstone, my source for some of the above information. You might also note that creationists undercut their credibility when they make historically inaccurate statements. Assuming that the geological information which falsifies a global flood was made by looking through evolution-tinged lenses reverses the historical order in which those conclusions were reached. The global reach of the flood was thoroughly falsified before Darwin returned to England from his historic journey and two decades before the publication of
Origin of Species. And those who showed that the geological strata were not laid down by a global flood, were, for the most part, Christians and creationists, not people with evolutionary pre-suppositions.
The above quote from Paul confirms that death was caused by the sin of one man Adam.
Paul would have referred to Adam Kadmon as "one man".
Paul believed Genesis 1 and 2 are literal.
In the sense a modern creationist means, this is highly unlikely.
Therefore evolution theory is false.
As noted above, an interpretation of scripture is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. If you believe in Creation, it follows that what God created must be taken seriously. And created nature does not permit the rejection of evolution.
Hence it is incorrect to interpret scripture so as to conflict with the natural reality God created.
Death is the enemy. Death and suffering are not a method of creation. Adam was the first man. He did not have a father because he was the first man. Therefore evolution theory is false.
Death and suffering are not a method of evolution either.
