Evolution vs. Theology

[Achilles6129]

Now, belief in a miracle can be falsified by science: if we find evidence that the alleged miracle did not occur. Note "did" not, not "can" not. So we can use science to expose the faked miracles of spiritualists, for example.

But we have no evidence that the miracles of Jesus or the prophets or apostles were faked. So we have no evidence that they did not happen as recorded.

You have every bit of evidence in the world that they did not occur - test and see for yourself!

I think you are using an inconsistent application here. You cannot accept miracles, which are scientifically impossible, and then reject whatever else you don't like in Scripture because you believe there is evidence against!

However, we can ask "Did God do this?" and if there is evidence that God did not, then we follow that evidence. Where there is no evidence contradicting the miracle, we follow the testimony as it stands.

You're falsely equating, again. There is evidence Christ did not perform all his miracles as they are all scientifically impossible. To say there is *no* evidence against is incorrect.

Therefore, you need to ask the same question about the global flood and a six day creation - "Can God do this?" If so, then believe it.

Scripture does not actually tell us that. It does say that after Adam's fall, death spread to all men, because all men sinned. But it says nothing about the death of other beings on earth being a consequence of human sin.

In that case, then, death is a part of the nature/character of God.

 

[Assyrian]

Death was only a part of the world after Adam's fall. God obviously knew Adam was going to fall. But that does not mean it was a part of his plan - as a matter of fact, it was not, which was why God commanded him not to eat from the tree in the first place.

If God knew people was going to sin and need redemption, and planned, before he created the world, to redeem a people for himself through the cross, then Christ's death, and the very existence of death in the world he was going to create were part of God's plan from the very beginning.

Rev 13:8 everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. Before God ever created the world, our names were written in the book of life of a sacrificial lamb.

And do you suppose that Ezekiel 28 is actually speaking about the garden of Eden on earth? There is also a garden of Eden in heaven as well which Christ speaks about in Revelation. Kind of like how the tabernacle is a pattern of the heavenly tabernacle.

You are not addressing my point. I wasn't about the location of Eden, but the devil as an originally good created being. Just because they are God's enemies now and that God will in the future destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil Heb 2:14, it doesn't mean that death, or the devil, weren't originally part of God's good creation.

 

[Achilles6129]

If God knew people was going to sin and need redemption, and planned, before he created the world, to redeem a people for himself through the cross, then Christ's death, and the very existence of death in the world he was going to create were part of God's plan from the very beginning.

Not in the slightest. If God had wanted Adam to sin he wouldn't have commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil! Foreknowledge and wanting something are two entirely different things. God can know something that's going to happen beforehand and yet it is not a part of his will.

Also I would actually argue that Christ did not have to die at all - that humanity could have gone through Judaism just fine - but God simply foreknew events that would occur. It is, however, a rather deep theological argument.

You are not addressing my point. I wasn't about the location of Eden, but the devil as an originally good created being. Just because they are God's enemies now and that God will in the future destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil Heb 2:14, it doesn't mean that death, or the devil, weren't originally part of God's good creation.

Right but originally Satan was good. Also, Satan is not a part of God's created cosmos of matter - Satan is a spirit, not a being made of matter. So he exists outside of this realm, in heaven. Satan's fall occurred in heaven, not in this created cosmos.

 

[pmmobley]

First, Genesis was not taken from someone's daily journal or diary; it spans history from the beginning to roughly 1900B.C., as 'told' some 400-500 years later.

Second, the ancient Hebrew language itself IS a very picturesque and poetic language; if translated literally, Jacob sent 550 animals to Esau in order to 'cover his face as with a towel' in hopes of assuaging Esau's anger when Jacob returned after 20 years with Laban. Maybe you are able to speak fluent ancient Hebrew AND are experienced with life in 1500 to 1400B.C. AND are reading from the original texts, but I am not. Therefore I must hold by faith the truth of my understanding of the book of Genesis.

Next, God gave us the ability to think and discern, relying on His Spirit to reveal truth to us. But He also gave us the ability to choose to believe or not. We may 'learn' a great deal about the world He created for us, but we will not 'know for certain' the how/when/where of it until the end. See Isaiah 55:8-9 - we cannot begin to be so arrogant as to believe we 'know it all'.

Lastly, the argument between 'instantaneous' creation and creation 'through a process' is simply a tactic of the great Deceiver to sidetrack our thoughts from the truth; God is The Creator, it really doesn't matter HOW He did it. I serve a BIG God - if He 'snaps His fingers' it will make a big bang! Also, He is powerful enough to speak into immediate existence anything He desires or to begin, then control, a process of events.

Is the point to know all about how we came to be, or worship the One who made this physical world?

 

[pmmobley]

It was said that Christ did not have to die at all - that humanity could have gone through Judaism just fine - but God simply foreknew events that would occur.

I beg to differ - adamantly! God gave the Mosaic Law to reveal how Holy and Righteous HE is, and how impossible it is for us to attain that on our own. Prior to the Incarnation, the sacrifices made showed the price He would pay for our sins, and the people received 'righteousness' by their BELIEF in the work of the coming Messiah as depicted by their sacrifices. Had He not come to die the sacrificial death on the Cross, that BELIEF would have been unfounded.

 

[mark kennedy]

First, Genesis was not taken from someone's daily journal or diary; it spans history from the beginning to roughly 1900B.C., as 'told' some 400-500 years later.

The first 12 chapters covers about 2,000 years.

Second, the ancient Hebrew language itself IS a very picturesque and poetic language; if translated literally, Jacob sent 550 animals to Esau in order to 'cover his face as with a towel' in hopes of assuaging Esau's anger when Jacob returned after 20 years with Laban. Maybe you are able to speak fluent ancient Hebrew AND are experienced with life in 1500 to 1400B.C. AND are reading from the original texts, but I am not. Therefore I must hold by faith the truth of my understanding of the book of Genesis.

The literary devices that make Hebrew poetic is often used to emphasis narratives. When speaking of the creation of man the statement is repeated three times, using the word 'bara' which is a word for creation used only of God. When a phrase is repeated lik that its usually for emphasis, they call it parallelism. You will find that the poetic literary features emphasis the literal interpretation

Next, God gave us the ability to think and discern, relying on His Spirit to reveal truth to us. But He also gave us the ability to choose to believe or not. We may 'learn' a great deal about the world He created for us, but we will not 'know for certain' the how/when/where of it until the end. See Isaiah 55:8-9 - we cannot begin to be so arrogant as to believe we 'know it all'.

The Holy Spirit does have to open your eyes to the truths of the Word of God, otherwise it's a closed book.

Lastly, the argument between 'instantaneous' creation and creation 'through a process' is simply a tactic of the great Deceiver to sidetrack our thoughts from the truth; God is The Creator, it really doesn't matter HOW He did it. I serve a BIG God - if He 'snaps His fingers' it will make a big bang! Also, He is powerful enough to speak into immediate existence anything He desires or to begin, then control, a process of events.

They call that Abiogenesis, it's impossible and irrelevant.

Is the point to know all about how we came to be, or worship the One who made this physical world?

That's a resounding theme throughout Scripture, literally from Genesis to Revelations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Lopez 15721]

I'm talking about the fact that animal/human death is in fact unclean to God in the book of Leviticus. Indeed, death itself is unclean to God. It is inconceivable how God would create through death and then proclaim it to be unclean and abhorrent to his nature later.



The sacrifice is for purposes of cleansing and returned to God by means of the animal's blood. The blood represents life and is used to purge the sanctuary from the sins of man. You will note that sacrifice is not around anymore - it was instituted until Christ came. In essence, all death is unclean unless the blood is returned to God. Sacrifice to God returns the blood to God. But all natural death is in fact unclean.



There is morality in relation to nature. Animal death/suffering is evil just and human death/suffering is evil.



"Purple" and "death" are two entirely different things! There's no good/evil to purple.



Right but it wasn't at the beginning. So you can't get around the fact that

1) God proclaimed everything "good" multiple times in Gen. 1

2) God is the only definition of good

3) Everything at the beginning was a part of the character/nature of God (from 1,2)

4) Evolution involves creation through death, etc.

5) Death is a part of God's nature (from 1,2,3,4)

However, in Scripture death is abhorrent to God and not a part of his nature at all. Animal sacrifice is instituted on a necessary basis only because it involves blood and blood is the life force of the animal. So really, animal sacrifice represents the triumph of life over death, not the other way around. In the NT we find that death is the enemy of God and that Satan is the god of death:




Sure, God has killed. But only for specific reasons. Death is not a part of the nature or character of God.



The creation is supernatural and miraculous.



Again, you're missing the point. The Bible doesn't give the names Adam gave to the animals. To say that they are the same names as given later in the book of Leviticus is to take interpretation waayyyyy too far.

My issue with your 'death argument' is that you, as a YEC, do not escape it and you act like your position does merely because "death was not there at the beginning." It's special pleading. Death still exists from a YEC p.o.v. and needs an explanation too.

So explain death under YEC. Natural death flourishes today, both animal and human. Yet God doesn't discontinue it by means of omnipotence. You see, death is still an issue for YEC. It is for all of Christianity. You know how it's an issue for you as a YEC still? You admit it by saying "human and animal death is evil." Why would God allow evil to take place, death to occur, when it can be just as easily stopped and undone just as it could have been pre - fall for TE?

No. There is only morality to nature when humans ascribe it. It is also incomparable to human suffering or killing. For example, a wolf kills it's prey for survival. Is that immoral? A human kills it's prey for... his own subjective reason? Is that immoral? If you answer yes to the first question, please explain the relevant similarities that make that connection as I'm sure you'd answer yes to the second. Although I think it's fairly naive, just as a toddlers mind set is, to say, "It's wrong that the wolf killed it's prey."

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying death isn't immoral in nature when it comes to animals killing each other. If that's the case, saying God is a god of death per evolution is futile, as death has no moral significance to say God is immoral.

Death was existent in the begging under YEC too! Just not as recent under TE. And I don't even think that is a relevant difference to exclude death as an issue for YEC. It has special pleading all over it.

Okay so let's review a few things. All unnatural death is unclean to God. God has killed. That must mean when God kills, for His own reasons, it's not unclean. If that's the case, then it is feasible to think that the animals death pre - fall under TE is not unclean as God had a role in it. Death is not different pre - fall in comparison to post - fall. It's not even to say God killed the animals Himself or made them kill each other, just as He did with the first borns and battle kills He commanded.

Oh come on, even you know that is a bogus rebuttal. The "light" is the sun. It has every property of the sun. Plus, it doesn't explain the inconsistency of "yom" defined in relation to the sun when you say there is no sun. The first couple days in Genesis still define "yom" in regards to the sun. Yet if there is no sun, it seems to discredit the original definition completely. Thirdly, you have evaded the repetition argument; there are two of the same events described in the text happening on two different days, and repetition is a poetic form.

You're right, the Bible doesn't say what names Adam gave the animals, though to assume it's the names we have now and have always had is not at all taking interpretation too far. It's a reasonable assumption. What is the point in God telling Adam to name the animals unless those names would always remain?

 

[Achilles6129]

It was said that Christ did not have to die at all - that humanity could have gone through Judaism just fine - but God simply foreknew events that would occur.

Noah/Enoch/Abraham did just fine with God, didn't they?

I beg to differ - adamantly! God gave the Mosaic Law to reveal how Holy and Righteous HE is, and how impossible it is for us to attain that on our own. Prior to the Incarnation, the sacrifices made showed the price He would pay for our sins, and the people received 'righteousness' by their BELIEF in the work of the coming Messiah as depicted by their sacrifices. Had He not come to die the sacrificial death on the Cross, that BELIEF would have been unfounded.

Well like I said, it is a rather deep discussion and that's not what this thread is about. If you would like maybe you can start a thread elsewhere on the subject, or I can start one.

My issue with your 'death argument' is that you, as a YEC, do not escape it and you act like your position does merely because "death was not there at the beginning." It's special pleading. Death still exists from a YEC p.o.v. and needs an explanation too.

So explain death under YEC. Natural death flourishes today, both animal and human. Yet God doesn't discontinue it by means of omnipotence. You see, death is still an issue for YEC. It is for all of Christianity. You know how it's an issue for you as a YEC still? You admit it by saying "human and animal death is evil." Why would God allow evil to take place, death to occur, when it can be just as easily stopped and undone just as it could have been pre - fall for TE?

First, just so you know, you can quote me using the "quote" button and that may make your replies a little bit easier (don't know if you knew that or not). Second, death is discontinued for all who obey God's commands:

"51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” " Jn. 8:51 (NASB)

No. There is only morality to nature when humans ascribe it.

God certainly ascribes it in the book of Genesis:

"5 Surely I will require [b]your lifeblood; [c]from every beast I will require it. And [d]from every man, [e]from every man’s brother I will require the life of man." Gen. 9:5 (NASB)

Also, I believe you just ascribed morality (actually the lack thereof) to nature by your own statement

It is also incomparable to human suffering or killing.

Animals suffer too, actually in quite an appalling fashion.

For example, a wolf kills it's prey for survival. Is that immoral? A human kills it's prey for... his own subjective reason? Is that immoral? If you answer yes to the first question, please explain the relevant similarities that make that connection as I'm sure you'd answer yes to the second. Although I think it's fairly naive, just as a toddlers mind set is, to say, "It's wrong that the wolf killed it's prey."

It's not wrong to kill prey and eat now - notice what God says in Genesis 9! But that was not originally how God created things pre-fall. Death is not a part of God's original creation. It is part of the fallen world now.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying death isn't immoral in nature when it comes to animals killing each other. If that's the case, saying God is a god of death per evolution is futile, as death has no moral significance to say God is immoral.

Ah, but it is! It's not the way the world was meant to be. The way this world is right now is not the way it was originally created!

Okay so let's review a few things. All unnatural death is unclean to God.

Well, that's just per the book of Leviticus. You can read the laws for yourself and see that death is unclean to God. You can also clearly see from Scripture that YHWH (and Christ is YHWH) is the God of life.

God has killed. That must mean when God kills, for His own reasons, it's not unclean.

Right, he kills for certain specific reasons. But this is necessary to destroy evil.

If that's the case, then it is feasible to think that the animals death pre - fall under TE is not unclean as God had a role in it. Death is not different pre - fall in comparison to post - fall. It's not even to say God killed the animals Himself or made them kill each other, just as He did with the first borns and battle kills He commanded.

Ah, but with God death is never a creative process! It is a destructive process whereby God is trying to destroy evil by killing people! In theistic evolution God creates through death. His initial creation, which is a reflection of himself, is full of death! That's the problem.

Oh come on, even you know that is a bogus rebuttal. The "light" is the sun. It has every property of the sun. Plus, it doesn't explain the inconsistency of "yom" defined in relation to the sun when you say there is no sun. The first couple days in Genesis still define "yom" in regards to the sun. Yet if there is no sun, it seems to discredit the original definition completely.

A day is not defined by the sun, it is defined by the rotation of the earth. The light was created on day 1 and the earth rotated relative to that light.

Thirdly, you have evaded the repetition argument; there are two of the same events described in the text happening on two different days, and repetition is a poetic form.

You're going to have to be more clear here.

You're right, the Bible doesn't say what names Adam gave the animals, though to assume it's the names we have now and have always had is not at all taking interpretation too far. It's a reasonable assumption. What is the point in God telling Adam to name the animals unless those names would always remain?

It's taking the interpretation way too far! We simply don't know what Adam named them - to claim that he gave them violent names is something that is definitely not in the text.

 

[gluadys]

Ah, but with God death is never a creative process! It is a destructive process whereby God is trying to destroy evil by killing people! In theistic evolution God creates through death.

This is where I think you are off-base. Death is not creative for evolution either. It is not by dying that species evolve--since sooner or later all die anyway.

What is necessary for evolution is that there be a non-random difference in successful reproduction.

So what causes unsuccessful reproduction?

1. Not having offspring. It is true that some individuals do not have offspring because they die young, but that is not the only reason not to have offspring and evolution does not depend on it. In animals where one male is dominant and blocks access to females for all but himself, there are many males who never mate and have offspring. Among humans, there are many who pledge themselves to chastity and many who live long lives in matrimony but for one reason or another just don't have children. So not having children does not necessarily require premature death.

2. Having non-viable offspring who do not survive long. Ok, that's premature death--but it is only one reason why reproduction may not be successful.

3. Having offspring who are sterile and incapable of having offspring of their own.

Short and long of it is whether death is involved or not, the essential for evolution is non-random success in reproduction, not death per se.

What do I mean by non-random. Simply that those who are fitter, better adapted to their habitat are more successful in reproducing. They are a) more likely to find mates, b) more likely to pass on their fitness and so less likely to have non-viable or sterile offspring. So more of the next generation are likely to come from these parents.

 

[mark kennedy]

My issue with your 'death argument' is that you, as a YEC, do not escape it and you act like your position does merely because "death was not there at the beginning." It's special pleading. Death still exists from a YEC p.o.v. and needs an explanation too.

Why does it need an explanation? That's like saying there are places where light is absent so darkness needs an explanation. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that all we are told in Scripture about death is that in Adam all die but in Christ is life.

No. There is only morality to nature when humans ascribe it. It is also incomparable to human suffering or killing. For example, a wolf kills it's prey for survival. Is that immoral? A human kills it's prey for... his own subjective reason? Is that immoral? If you answer yes to the first question, please explain the relevant similarities that make that connection as I'm sure you'd answer yes to the second. Although I think it's fairly naive, just as a toddlers mind set is, to say, "It's wrong that the wolf killed it's prey."

The morality of wolves...seriously...

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying death isn't immoral in nature when it comes to animals killing each other. If that's the case, saying God is a god of death per evolution is futile, as death has no moral significance to say God is immoral.

OHHHHH, so your not talking about theology your talking about death and evolution. Yea, that's called natural selection, it's has very little to do with evolution and as little as possible to do with Christian theism. Death is the absence of life and evolution is a living theory. The Scriptures tell us how sin, and death through sin, entered the human race because of our first parent. We are further told how we can choose life instead. God's morality isn't the cause of death:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:3-5)​

Death was existent in the begging under YEC too! Just not as recent under TE. And I don't even think that is a relevant difference to exclude death as an issue for YEC. It has special pleading all over it.

I think your the one begging the question. For one thing you speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent when trying to do a sound exposition. You don't build a strawman argument from whatever loose speculation is lying around and pretend it's someone else's fault your not getting a coherent answer. Your problem is that your not asking a real question.

Okay so let's review a few things. All unnatural death is unclean to God. God has killed. That must mean when God kills, for His own reasons, it's not unclean. If that's the case, then it is feasible to think that the animals death pre - fall under TE is not unclean as God had a role in it. Death is not different pre - fall in comparison to post - fall. It's not even to say God killed the animals Himself or made them kill each other, just as He did with the first borns and battle kills He commanded.

Ever read the Revelation? God repays evil for evil, I don't know where your getting your theology but it isn't from the Bible.

Oh come on, even you know that is a bogus rebuttal. The "light" is the sun. It has every property of the sun. Plus, it doesn't explain the inconsistency of "yom" defined in relation to the sun when you say there is no sun. The first couple days in Genesis still define "yom" in regards to the sun. Yet if there is no sun, it seems to discredit the original definition completely. Thirdly, you have evaded the repetition argument; there are two of the same events described in the text happening on two different days, and repetition is a poetic form.

Hang on, what does 'Yom' have to do with it? There was evening and morning the first day... the second day...etc. That's a pretty good indication it means 'DAY'. Do the math, Evening (a reference to the setting of the sun) plus morning (a reference to the rising of the sun) equals 'DAY'.

It's repeated six times plus a seventh day equals, one week, aka Creation Week. What's the problem?

You're right, the Bible doesn't say what names Adam gave the animals, though to assume it's the names we have now and have always had is not at all taking interpretation too far. It's a reasonable assumption. What is the point in God telling Adam to name the animals unless those names would always remain?

It would have been nice if Noah had taken some scientific notes about the birds, reptiles and mammals that he took aboard the Ark. I would just love to know what the writer of Hebrews wanted to say about Melchizedek but he didn't because they were dull of hearing. I'm sure what Jesus said to the Apostles about messianic prophecy, walking along the road to Emmaus was very interesting, but John didn't write it down. You know what you call that, it's just too bad.

I don't see a 'reasonable assumption' here, I see some bold talk and at least three highly presumptive questions.

Your asking a lot of questions about death, the only answers your going to get are about knowing the Creator of life.

These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)​

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[toLiJC]

What position exactly do you support? It seems to me that human beings can come out of sin if they want to. Torah legislation provides ways of expiating sin long before Christ. Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., were all doing just fine as well.

there can be only no more than about 5-6 millennia under sin

Revelation 17:10 "there are seven kings(i.e. seven times): five are fallen(i.e. it is expected that 5 millennia pass reckoned from the day of the original sin on), and one is(i.e. and the end of the God's half-sleep is expected to be in the 6th millennium), and the other is not yet come(i.e. and the time during which the "darkness" will continue to reign (before God wakes fully up) in the sixth millennium will occur at last); and when he cometh, he must continue a short space(i.e. but it will continue a very short time)."

Blessings

 

[Lopez 15721]

Noah/Enoch/Abraham did just fine with God, didn't they?



Well like I said, it is a rather deep discussion and that's not what this thread is about. If you would like maybe you can start a thread elsewhere on the subject, or I can start one.



First, just so you know, you can quote me using the "quote" button and that may make your replies a little bit easier (don't know if you knew that or not). Second, death is discontinued for all who obey God's commands:




God certainly ascribes it in the book of

Also, I believe you just ascribed morality (actually the lack thereof) to nature by your own statement



Animals suffer too, actually in quite an appalling fashion.



It's not wrong to kill prey and eat now - notice what God says in Genesis 9! But that was not originally how God created things pre-fall. Death is not a part of God's original creation. It is part of the fallen world now.



Ah, but it is! It's not the way the world was meant to be. The way this world is right now is not the way it was originally created!



Well, that's just per the book of Leviticus. You can read the laws for yourself and see that death is unclean to God. You can also clearly see from Scripture that YHWH (and Christ is YHWH) is the God of life.



Right, he kills for certain specific reasons. But this is necessary to destroy evil.



Ah, but with God death is never a creative process! It is a destructive process whereby God is trying to destroy evil by killing people! In theistic evolution God creates through death. His initial creation, which is a reflection of himself, is full of death! That's the problem.



A day is not defined by the sun, it is defined by the rotation of the earth. The light was created on day 1 and the earth rotated relative to that light.



You're going to have to be more clear here.



It's taking the interpretation way too far! We simply don't know what Adam named them - to claim that he gave them violent names is something that is definitely not in the text.

Yes I'm aware of the quote button I'm just using my phone so it would be tedious and too time consuming. My apologies. Oh, and the same is true under TE! Death can be discontinued.

By morality I mean a sense of right and wrong. It is not immoral of the wolf to kill his prey. Also, the verse you quoted doesn't even say morality is an aspect of nature. And no, I didn't say morality is ascribed to nature by what I said in my earlier post. I said morality is only ascribed to nature when we do so, which is to imply there really is no morality in the first place and is erroneously applied by us.

What you're not acknowledging is that extinctions and selective individual death occurs today. If God exists and is creator, He created at the very least the circumstances that cause extinctions and death. It is true even if you believe death existed only post - fall as God implemented the consequence of death for sinning. That is all God did pre - fall under TE which is consequently not a relevant difference between YEC, which again cries the fallacy of special pleading. You're holding holding a double standard so to speak.

So you admit God kills for specific reasons. So God is justified in anything to do with killing, right?

A day actually is defined by the sun. This, like I have been saying for some time now, is true in the definition of "yom." It is true of any modern definition as well, just like the one I quoted. The sun is necessary for a day to even occur. For it to even rotate. Without the sun the earth would be nill. The "light" as has been pointed out, must be the actual sun under YEC. A light cannot support a whole galaxy. It's too vague a description. Surely is not science related.

How is it not noticeable? Look at day one and day four. They describe the same event:

Genesis 1: 4-5 -- "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.'"

Genesis 1: 14-18 -- "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night...." "God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."

Notice the similarities? On day one God created light and separated it from darkness and called the one day and the other night. Yet on day four God created lights to separate the day from the night. Though that already happened on day one. So it's two descriptions of the same event. It's repetition.

Well the definitions of the names are in the text. And they are defined violently. If not from Adam, whom God told to name the animals, did the animals names come from then? Also, what is the purpose of God telling Adam to name the animals if those wouldn't be the names to stick?

 

[mark kennedy]

What you're not acknowledging is that extinctions and selective individual death occurs today. If God exists and is creator, He created at the very least the circumstances that cause extinctions and death. It is true even if you believe death existed only post - fall as God implemented the consequence of death for sinning. That is all God did pre - fall under TE which is consequently not a relevant difference between YEC, which again cries the fallacy of special pleading. You're holding holding a double standard so to speak.

The only special pleading here is the one your doing for Darwinian natural selection. What is more you begging the question of proof on your hands and knees with regards to the cause for death and the role of extinction. What we do know from Scripture is that death came through the sin of one man.

According to Paul, sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Your not going to solve the problem of death until you deal with original sin. I know you've came to believe attacking Creationism makes Theistic Evolution scientific, what you don't seem to realize is that it's designed to have a deleterious effect on your theology. It would not be so bad if it were not so effective. The problem for Theistic Evolutionists is that they have no theological bearings until they honestly asses the clear testimony of Scripture. It is unavoidable for Christians.

So you admit God kills for specific reasons. So God is justified in anything to do with killing, right?

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. (Lev. 10:1, 2)

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (Acts 5: 9,10)​

Unless you repent a worse thing will happen to you:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matt 5:29,30)​

A day actually is defined by the sun. This, like I have been saying for some time now, is true in the definition of "yom." It is true of any modern definition as well, just like the one I quoted. The sun is necessary for a day to even occur. For it to even rotate. Without the sun the earth would be nill. The "light" as has been pointed out, must be the actual sun under YEC. A light cannot support a whole galaxy. It's too vague a description. Surely is not science related.

'Yom' means a normal 24 hour day, not because I say so or want it to mean 'DAY' but because Evening plus Morning equals Day. Add up seven of those you have Creation week, do the math.

How is it not noticeable? Look at day one and day four. They describe the same event:

Genesis 1: 4-5 -- "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.'"

Genesis 1: 14-18 -- "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night...." "God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."

Have you never heard of the Shechinah Glory of God? 'The visible manifestation of the presence of God.'

You really shouldn't be getting your theology from secular sources and you will never understand the science of evolution by repeating the fallacious arguments of Darwinians. If you want to talk about Darwinian natural selection we can discuss that, if you want to discuss the cause of sin and death the Scriptures have an abundant witness regarding that topic. If you want to take up the topic of Darwinism or Hamartology but if you conflate the two you will understand neither.

Notice the similarities? On day one God created light and separated it from darkness and called the one day and the other night. Yet on day four God created lights to separate the day from the night. Though that already happened on day one. So it's two descriptions of the same event. It's repetition.

The sun was created in Genesis 1:1,2, it did not reach the earth until the light and darkness, like the land and sea were separated. The entire narrative is from the perspective of the face of the earth. How are you going to preach to Creationists from their primary proof text when you can't make the most fundamental insights into the defining literary features?

Well the definitions of the names are in the text. And they are defined violently. If not from Adam, whom God told to name the animals, did the animals names come from then? Also, what is the purpose of God telling Adam to name the animals if those wouldn't be the names to stick?

What has that got to do with anything? For a sound exposition of Scripture you have to speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent. Death, sin and natural selection has nothing to do with Adam's naming convention. It's called a Red herring fallacy, it's 'used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.'

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? (Romans 8:22-24)​

Are you walking by faith or sight?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Lopez 15721]

The only special pleading here is the one your doing for Darwinian natural selection. What is more you begging the question of proof on your hands and knees with regards to the cause for death and the role of extinction. What we do know from Scripture is that death came through the sin of one man.

According to Paul, sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Your not going to solve the problem of death until you deal with original sin. I know you've came to believe attacking Creationism makes Theistic Evolution scientific, what you don't seem to realize is that it's designed to have a deleterious effect on your theology. It would not be so bad if it were not so effective. The problem for Theistic Evolutionists is that they have no theological bearings until they honestly asses the clear testimony of Scripture. It is unavoidable for Christians.

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. (Lev. 10:1, 2)

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (Acts 5: 9,10)​

Unless you repent a worse thing will happen to you:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matt 5:29,30)​

'Yom' means a normal 24 hour day, not because I say so or want it to mean 'DAY' but because Evening plus Morning equals Day. Add up seven of those you have Creation week, do the math.

How is it not noticeable? Look at day one and day four. They describe the of God? 'The visible manifestation of the presence of God.'

You really shouldn't be getting your theology from secular sources and you will never understand the science of evolution by repeating the fallacious arguments of Darwinians. If you want to talk about Darwinian natural selection we can discuss that, if you want to discuss the cause of sin and death the Scriptures have an abundant witness regarding that topic. If you want to take up the topic of Darwinism but if you conflate the two you will understand neither.



The sun was created in Genesis 1:1,2, it did not reach the earth until the light and darkness, like the land and sea were separated. The entire narrative is from the perspective of the face of the earth. How are you going to preach to Creationists from their primary proof text when you can't make the most fundamental insights into the defining literary features?



What has that got to do with anything? For a sound exposition of Scripture you have to speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent. Death, sin and natural selection has nothing to do with Adam's naming convention. it's 'used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.'

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? (Romans 8:22-24)​

Are you walking by faith or sight?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Wrong. It's pure special pleading for YEC to argue death is an issue for TE and not their position. There is no relevant difference that makes death an issue for one position more than the other. Post or pre Fall it doesn't matter, death still exists. I believe death came through Adam, though the text does not say animal and plant death came through him, just human death as those verses are referring to death as a result of sinning, and we both know animals and plants are not capable of sinning. I'm also not attempting to solve any issue with death; I'm simply pointing out the fallacy YECs make with their 'death argument.'

Yom also means sunrise to sunset. That is how it is defined in the original Hebrew in relation to the 24 hr period. Also, I'm not getting anything from a secular source, it is just hard to ignore the blatant similarities between day one and day four. There is nothing fallacious about said similarities and if there were, you surely have failed to explain that. I'm not asking to talk about natural selection with you or anyone. I'm responding to the OP and answering and discussing the questions and statements.

How am I at fault when YECs say and argue two different things? That is no one's fault but the YEC for not getting their answers corroborated. In fact, I've never head from a YEC that the sun was created on Genesis 1:1;2. It's interesting and I'd hope you actually answer some of the questions instead of evade them like you have with others when you replied to my post. Are other YECs wrong in saying the sun was created on day four? How do you explain the sun allegedly being created on day four in the text as most YECs say it is? Lastly, how is YEC meant to be advocated in a consistent way when there are two different stances on it?

The questions I asked about the animals names were the questions I was referring to as being evaded. If you're going to say the name Adam gave the animals aren't the same names we have now, could you share you're insight into those two questions?

 

[Achilles6129]

Oh, and the same is true under TE! Death can be discontinued.

Why would God bother to discontinue death if he created through evolution? There's really no point. Death is a part of his nature, per theistic evolution, so it is always going to be around.

By morality I mean a sense of right and wrong. It is not immoral of the wolf to kill his prey. Also, the verse you quoted doesn't even say morality is an aspect of nature.

In Leviticus all animal death is viewed as unclean. So death is unclean to God, period. Hence, all killing is actually immoral. The reason why the wolf kills his prey is because of what happened at the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. From the beginning it was not so.

And the verse I quoted absolutely does say that morality is an aspect of nature, because it says God will require the blood of man from the beasts.

What you're not acknowledging is that extinctions and selective individual death occurs today. If God exists and is creator, He created at the very least the circumstances that cause extinctions and death. It is true even if you believe death existed only post - fall as God implemented the consequence of death for sinning. That is all God did pre - fall under TE which is consequently not a relevant difference between YEC, which again cries the fallacy of special pleading. You're holding holding a double standard so to speak.

Not in the slightest! Death is a result of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. Prior to that, there was no animal/human death. If Adam/Eve eat of the tree, they will enter into a totally different world, a world where death indeed does exist.

God will not be the God of that world, Satan will. So God gave Adam/Eve the ability to fall, and he obviously made it possible for this world to fall, but that does not mean that it was his will to do so.

So you admit God kills for specific reasons. So God is justified in anything to do with killing, right?

Of course. But God kills to destroy or eradicate evil. Remember how the NT talks about how sin brings forth death.

A day actually is defined by the sun. This, like I have been saying for some time now, is true in the definition of "yom." It is true of any modern definition as well, just like the one I quoted. The sun is necessary for a day to even occur. For it to even rotate. Without the sun the earth would be nill. The "light" as has been pointed out, must be the actual sun under YEC. A light cannot support a whole galaxy. It's too vague a description. Surely is not science related.

It is the miraculous creation of this cosmos by God. And a 'day' is actually defined by the rotation period of the earth. In this case, it would have been relevant to the light created in day one. And if you think God cannot make the earth rotate, then you simply do not understand how the entire cosmos is under the control of God.

Well the definitions of the names are in the text. And they are defined violently. If not from Adam, whom God told to name the animals, did the animals names come from then? Also, what is the purpose of God telling Adam to name the animals if those wouldn't be the names to stick?

Some animals are named much, much later in the Torah in places like the book of Leviticus. You can't take the animal names in the book of Leviticus and claim that is what Adam named the animals because it is unbelievably unsound exegesis and has nothing whatsoever to support it.

Wrong. It's pure special pleading for YEC to argue death is an issue for TE and not their position. There is no relevant difference that makes death an issue for one position more than the other. Post or pre Fall it doesn't matter, death still exists.

It matters hugely, because God said everything was very good, only God is good, and thus the initial creation reflected his nature. If death existed, then death is a part of the nature of God.

I believe death came through Adam, though the text does not say animal and plant death came through him,

The text very strongly implies animal death came through him, because it very strongly implies that all animals were herbivores prior to the fall. Paul also seems to talk about the creation being subjected to vanity through the fall of Adam:

"19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, [i]in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." Rom. 1:19-22 (NASB)

 

[mark kennedy]

Wrong. It's pure special pleading for YEC to argue death is an issue for TE and not their position.

Wrong, it's natural selection and it's in contention with creation as essential doctrine. I don't know where you get the idea that your anticreation rhetoric makes you some kind of an authority for science, philosophy or theology but you haven't made a substantive argument yet.

here is no relevant difference that makes death an issue for one position more than the other. Post or pre Fall it doesn't matter, death still exists.

The only Christian explanation your going to get from the Scriptures and the Gospel is the way to escape sin and death from the second Adam by faith in Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God.

I believe death came through Adam,

That's the whole problem, you don't believe the clear testimony of Scripture.

though the text does not say animal and plant death came through him, just human death as those verses are referring to death as a result of sinning, and we both know animals and plants are not capable of sinning. I'm also not attempting to solve any issue with death; I'm simply pointing out the fallacy YECs make with their 'death argument.'

There is no such thing as a 'death argument', you are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees

Yom also means sunrise to sunset. That is how it is defined in the original Hebrew in relation to the 24 hr period.

So Yom means day, your finally admitting a substantive point.

Also, I'm not getting anything from a secular source,

Your not getting it from the Scriptures.

it is just hard to ignore the blatant similarities between day one and day four.

Why, you had no problem ignoring the literary features of a real exposition I provided for you not once but twice. It's from the surface of the earth and God made the heavens and the earth including the sun before creation week started. Before you start pontificating to people who have studied the Word of God their whole lives you should really do some actual study or at least listen to someone who has.

There is nothing fallacious about said similarities and if there were, you surely have failed to explain that. I'm not asking to talk about natural selection with you or anyone. I'm responding to the OP and answering and discussing the questions and statements.

Your talking in circles about nothing in particular, that's called circular reasoning and it's another fallacious argument the TEs are famous for.

How am I at fault when YECs say and argue two different things? That is no one's fault but the YEC for not getting their answers corroborated. In fact, I've never head from a YEC that the sun was created on Genesis 1:1;2.

You have now, so spare the strawman any further indignities. And BTW, I'm just curious, do you even own a Bible?

It's interesting and I'd hope you actually answer some of the questions instead of evade them like you have with others when you replied to my post.

You have been answer and refuted and you repeatedly go back to the same question no matter what the answer is and it's called begging the question.

Are other YECs wrong in saying the sun was created on day four? How do you explain the sun allegedly being created on day four in the text as most YECs say it is? Lastly, how is YEC meant to be advocated in a consistent way when there are two different stances on it?

It doesn't say the sun was created on Day 4, there is more then one word being used for creation and I've already given vital insights into the literary features requisite to understanding the passage. I'm not here to defend YEC, I'm here to discuss Creation as doctrine are argue against the atheistic materialist philosophy known as Darwinism that passes itself off as evolution.

The questions I asked about the animals names were the questions I was referring to as being evaded. If you're going to say the name Adam gave the animals aren't the same names we have now, could you share you're insight into those two questions?

The naming convention of Adam is typical of taxonomic classifications, they are made for the sake of convenience. The Scriptures simply say he named the living creatures, your making some convoluted point of contention up off the top of your head in circles. No matter what the answer you just ask the question again, it's called begging the question of proof. It's fallacious so in effect, it's a question that never happened.

It doesn't seem to matter how badly Theistic Evolutionist train wreck in these debates. No matter what is said their always superior, self absorbed and shamelessly fallacious. Just once I'd like to see one of you take on a real question and offer a substantive answer. Just once.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[miamited]

Hi lopez,

If I may add:

You wrote:

A day actually is defined by the sun. This, like I have been saying for some time now, is true in the definition of "yom." It is true of any modern definition as well, just like the one I quoted. The sun is necessary for a day to even occur.

No! Daylight is defined by the sun. You can look in any encyclopedia or bing/google what makes a day. It is nothing more than the time it takes for a planet to complete one full rotation on its axis. If, when God spoke the earth into existence and it was spinning when He placed it all alone, all by itself in the vast expanse of our universe, it was spinning at near about the same speed as it spins today, then in roughly 24 hours, as we account time, a day would have passed. No sun! No moon! No stars necessary for a day to pass.

Now, for daylight, which we have come to assume is part of a day, then there must be some source for that light and that is the sun. But the sun does not define a 'day'. God defined a day and He divided the day into two equal parts, which still today is considered an evening and a morning. If you walk into any Walmart at 2 in the morning people are likely to greet you with "Good morning", even though the sun is nowhere to be found in the visible sky to that person. How can that be?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Lopez 15721]

Why would God bother to discontinue death if he created through evolution? There's really no point. Death is a part of his nature, per theistic evolution, so it is always going to be around.



In Leviticus all animal death is viewed as unclean. So death is unclean to God, period. Hence, all killing is actually immoral. The reason why the wolf kills his prey is because of what happened at the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. From the beginning it was not so.

And the verse I quoted absolutely does say that morality is an aspect of nature, because it says God will require the blood of man from the beasts.




Not in the slightest! Death is a result of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. Prior to that, there was no animal/human death. If Adam/Eve eat of the tree, they will enter into a totally different world, a world where death indeed does exist.

God will not be the God of that world, Satan will. So God gave Adam/Eve the ability to fall, and he obviously made it possible for this world to fall, but that does not mean that it was his will to do so.




Of course. But God kills to destroy or eradicate evil. Remember how the NT talks about how sin brings forth death.




It is the miraculous creation of this cosmos by God. And a 'day' is actually defined by the rotation period of the earth. In this case, it would have been relevant to the light created in day one. And if you think God cannot make the earth rotate, then you simply do not understand how the entire cosmos is under the control of God.




Some animals are named much, much later in the Torah in places like the book of Leviticus. You can't take the animal names in the book of Leviticus and claim that is what Adam named the animals because it is unbelievably unsound exegesis and has nothing whatsoever to support it.



It matters hugely, because God said everything was very good, only God is good, and thus the initial creation reflected his nature. If death existed, then death is a part of the nature of God.




The text very strongly implies animal death came through him, because it very strongly implies that all animals were herbivores prior to the fall. Paul also seems to talk about the creation being subjected to vanity through the fall of Adam:

Why would God discontinue death if He created the circumstances for it? There's really no point. Death is part of His nature. You see the same arguments can be made!

If all killing is immoral, then God's killings are immoral. So either God is immoral for killing even under YEC, or you're wrong and God is not immoral when He kills. And guess what, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was created by God. Death is the result of the circumstances God created a long with first man's decision. However, if not for God implementing the possibility of death there would be none.

Day is defined by rotation in respect to something that the earth is rotating in the first place! Such as the sun, or in your case, the light. It just so happens this light appears to be the sun or at the very least had every single property of the sun. I've just heard from another poster that a literal reading of Genesis doesn't say the sun was made on day 4 but instead in the beginning. What would you say to that?

What animals were named later? How did they get their names? And again, without evading the question yet again, why did God tell Adam to name tha animals if the names wouldn't stay?

I wouldn't say the initial creation came about until man existed. That is the ultimate result of God creating via evolution.

It implies no such thing and only implies the opposite. It cannot be referring to animal death as it is referencing sin and animals do not sin.

 

[Lopez 15721]

Wrong, it's natural selection and it's in contention with creation as essential doctrine. I don't know where you get the idea that your anticreation rhetoric makes you some kind of an authority for science, philosophy or theology but you haven't made a substantive argument yet.



The only Christian explanation your going to get from the Scriptures and the Gospel is the way to escape sin and death from the second Adam by faith in Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God.



That's the whole problem, you don't believe the clear testimony of Scripture.



There is no such thing as a 'death argument', you are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees




So Yom means day, your finally admitting a substantive point.



Your not getting it from the Scriptures.



Why, you had no problem ignoring the literary features of a real exposition I provided for you not once but twice. It's from the surface of the earth and God made the heavens and the earth including the sun before creation week started. Before you start pontificating to people who have studied the Word of God their whole lives you should really do some actual study or at least listen to someone who has.



Your talking in circles about nothing in particular, that's called circular reasoning and it's another fallacious argument the TEs are famous for.



You have now, so spare the strawman any further indignities. And BTW, I'm just curious, do you even own a Bible?



You have been answer and refuted and you repeatedly go back to the same question no matter what the answer is and it's called begging the question.



It doesn't say the sun was created on Day 4, there is more then one word being used for creation and I've already given vital insights into the literary features requisite to understanding the passage. I'm not here to defend YEC, I'm here to discuss Creation as doctrine are argue against the atheistic materialist philosophy known as Darwinism that passes itself off as evolution.



The naming convention of Adam is typical of taxonomic classifications, they are made for the sake of convenience. The Scriptures simply say he named the living creatures, your making some convoluted point of contention up off the top of your head in circles. No matter what the answer you just ask the question again, it's called begging the question of proof. It's fallacious so in effect, it's a question that never happened.

It doesn't seem to matter how badly Theistic Evolutionist train wreck in these debates. No matter what is said their always superior, self absorbed and shamelessly fallacious. Just once I'd like to see one of you take on a real question and offer a substantive answer. Just once.

And I don't know where you get the idea that your anti evolution rhetoric makes you think what I'm saying makes me feel as if I'm some authoritive figure, cause I surely think no such thing. It's not that I haven't made an argument, it's either you don't realize what it is or don't understand how to adress it.

The 'death argument' I'm referring to is the argument that TE is wrong cause of death pre - fall. So yes, there is such an argument ad it's what you and the other poster are arguing....

Yes yom means day I never said it doesn't or have argued it doesn’t. Also, I quoted Scripture lol. So yeah, I am getting it from Scripture.

I'm not talking in circles you have just failed to adress the claims and questions. You falsely apply fallacies where they don't belong, such as the "straw man" as I was simply claiming you and another poster have two different readings of what you both describe as a literal reading. If you can't or chose not to answer questions related to your statement maybe you shouldn't say anything at all or at least know how to apply a fallacy, perhaps even explain how it is implied instead of just making making a baseless claim.

If you're here to argue against an atheistic philosophy or even Darwinism, then you're clearly in the wrong place. No one advocating evolution is doing so from an atheistic view rather from a theistic view.

 

[Lopez 15721]

No! Daylight is defined by the sun. You can look in any encyclopedia or bing/google what makes a day

A definition from Google:

1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.

A definition from Bing:

the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset

Both definitions include the sun. Obviously you are incorrect here.