Evolution

[Greg1234]

OK, some of the many verses for these:

1. Cosmolgy IS mentioned and heliocentrism tells us it is a lie. One of the many verses is Ps 19:4:

he set a tabernacle for the sun, .... His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.


So where is the tabernacle that God keeps the sun in? Or is that a metaphor? Is the sun on a circuit around the earth? Or is that a figure of speech not to be taken literally?​

To add, Psalm 19 describes the sun's movement across the sky or the heavens as we accurately observe. The author uses this point of view in poetic style to draw an analogy with a spiritual aspect as outlined by another (WW). This point of view is also seen in Ecclesiastes 1:5 as well as other places.

Further the use of the word "earth" and "world" may not always refer to the entire earth, a usage indicated in Gen 1:10

The cause of sickness is mentioned (many times) and germ theory tells us it is a lie. An example is 9:20, where the boy clearly has epilepsy, yet the text literally says that the boy is possessed by a demon.

Epilepsy was mentioned in Matthew and in Mark it was left out. This may be the documenting of two separate incidences merged into one. Another Darwinist uses the discrepancies in the accounting of the resurrection the same way.

This is even more likely occur as sickness is seen also as disharmony and a healing may take place directly, to neutralize its instigator.

which is also the word of God, that repeatedly confrims the evolution of humans from apes?

But when a creationist says it, it's a crime against humanity.

OK, plain simple falsehood # (what, three? I lost count). The dead sea scrolls were found to differ from the Bibles we have (regardless of which one you choose). Even in well copied books, like Isaiah, there were dozens of differences, and in many books there were hundreds or more of differences, including added paragraphs, words, lines and so on. The DSS also contained a listing of the kinds in the Genesis creation story.

Only when you nit pick it.

The Dead Sea Scrolls play a crucial role in assessing the accurate preservation of the Old Testament. With its hundreds of manuscripts from every book except Esther, detailed comparisons can be made with more recent texts.
The Old Testament that we use today is translated from what is called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who between A.D. 500 and 950 gave the Old Testament the form that we use today. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935
​

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now had manuscripts that predated the Masoretic Text by about one thousand years. Scholars were anxious to see how the Dead Sea documents would match up with the Masoretic Text. If a significant amount of differences were found, we could conclude that our Old Testament Text had not been well preserved. Critics, along with religious groups such as Muslims and Mormons, often make the claim that the present day Old Testament has been corrupted and is not well preserved. According to these religious groups, this would explain the contradictions between the Old Testament and their religious teachings.

After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, "It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'


A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.

One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.
​

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Probe Ministries

​

 

[1whirlwind]

The Hebrew word does mean dusk but as shown in Strong's it is....(dusk + day). I'm not certain what that means but if it is as it appears to be, evening means the dusk plus the day, then would not the high noon to nightfall be correct? Then the day would be sunrise to sunset, morning and evening.


It is a shadow of things to come for it speaks of the millennium. However, the day has begun....

Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.
​

All of that is past tense, "ended His work, He had made, He rested from what He had made, He sanctified, He had rested." So, the day has begun and appears to have closed for "in it He had rested." That determines the day as having ended. But it is interesting that there is the absence of "the evening and the morning were the seventh day."


Is that telling us the time frame was different than the other days? Is it saying that the night of that seventh day is still going on...night being Satan's time?


.

I carried this line of questioning into another thread on General Theology....I hope those interested will continue it there.

The Evening and the Morning


.

 

[1whirlwind]

To add, Psalm 19 describes the sun's movement across the sky or the heavens as we accurately observe. The author uses this point of view in poetic style to draw an analogy with a spiritual aspect as outlined by another (WW). This point of view is also seen in Ecclesiastes 1:5 as well as other places.

Further the use of the word "earth" and "world" may not always refer to the entire earth, a usage indicated in Gen 1:10

Epilepsy was mentioned in Matthew and in Mark it was left out. This may be the documenting of two separate incidences merged into one. Another Darwinist uses the discrepancies in the accounting of the resurrection the same way.

This is even more likely occur as sickness is seen also as disharmony and a healing may take place directly, to neutralize its instigator.


But when a creationist says it, it's a crime against humanity.

Only when you nit pick it.

The Dead Sea Scrolls play a crucial role in assessing the accurate preservation of the Old Testament. With its hundreds of manuscripts from every book except Esther, detailed comparisons can be made with more recent texts.
The Old Testament that we use today is translated from what is called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who between A.D. 500 and 950 gave the Old Testament the form that we use today. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935
​

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now had manuscripts that predated the Masoretic Text by about one thousand years. Scholars were anxious to see how the Dead Sea documents would match up with the Masoretic Text. If a significant amount of differences were found, we could conclude that our Old Testament Text had not been well preserved. Critics, along with religious groups such as Muslims and Mormons, often make the claim that the present day Old Testament has been corrupted and is not well preserved. According to these religious groups, this would explain the contradictions between the Old Testament and their religious teachings.

After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, "It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'


A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.

One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.
​

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Probe Ministries

​

Thank you again Greg. This was a keeper!


.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

A point you must acknowledge is....the creation account is not an interpretation. It is written, not interpreted. Flat earth was not written...the creation was. Therefore the decision on where the lie is is quite simple.

Again....you are assuming that what they taught was against the written word. It wasn't. It was instead against man's warped idea of what was written. Creation is written....evolution is not.

You keep repeating certain ideas again and again, as if this will somehow convince others- and yourself- that it is true.

You also keep insisting on making your point by implying, for example, that those of us who disagree with your position are using a "lie", or have "warped" ideas.

My great concern is that this has the great potential to bring our faith into disrepute, especially with those Christ-seekers who come to this site to see what Christianity is all about, and whether it truly is a faith where love predominates.

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version):

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

To most Christians, this is crystal-clear: God created man from the dust of the ground and gave him the breath of life.

But nowhere does it say how God took the inanimate dust of the ground and changed it into a living man. A Christian who wants to interpret this as being an act of instant creation, and another one who believes that it was a more complex process involving many intermediate steps, are both entitled to have their viewpoint honoured and respected.

This is not something that should be divisive amongst Christians, or bring into question, by implication or otherwise, anyone's salvation; in this regard, we need to earnestly heed the teachings in the Bible:

2 Timothy 2:

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[1whirlwind]

You keep repeating certain ideas again and again, as if this will somehow convince others- and yourself- that it is true.

I do indeed. What is it I continue to repeat? Certain ideas or the written Word of the Lord? Hopefully He will convince others.

You also keep insisting on making your point by implying, for example, that those of us who disagree with your position are using a "lie", or have "warped" ideas.

What would you term a statement that is diametrically opposed to the Word of the Lord? The choice is Creation or it is Evolution. As one is truth then the other is a lie. Do you believe God lied?

My great concern is that this has the great potential to bring our faith into disrepute, especially with those Christ-seekers who come to this site to see what Christianity is all about, and whether it truly is a faith where love predominates.

It is vital to love Him and each other in truth. You could lovingly teach others to jump off a cliff, or drink the kool-aid of Jim Jones, or lovingly
join the Moonies, or lovingly burn alive with David Koresh...all done in love and peace. To teach truth is love!

Zechariah 8:19 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace.

Ephesians 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

11 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

​

Do you see any verses telling us to love each other and allow truth to fall away?

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version):

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

To most Christians, this is crystal-clear: God created man from the dust of the ground and gave him the breath of life.

But nowhere does it say how God took the inanimate dust of the ground and changed it into a living man. A Christian who wants to interpret this as being an act of instant creation, and another one who believes that it was a more complex process involving many intermediate steps, are both entitled to have their viewpoint honoured and respected.

You forget other pieces of information He gave us that show it was not a long, long evolutionary process. All must fit or it isn't true.

This is not something that should be divisive amongst Christians, or bring into question, by implication or otherwise, anyone's salvation; in this regard, we need to earnestly heed the teachings in the Bible:

2 Timothy 2:

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I am doing just that. I pray that by providing His Words on the creation that God "peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"...so...."they may recover themselves." What you appear to term "foolish and unlearned questions," doesn't apply to the topic of the creation of the world. If it were I doubt He would have taken the trouble of telling us how we came about.

It would have been a simple thing to tell us we evolved over the millennia from humble beginnings. He didn't. Don't you wonder why?


.

 

[Greg1234]

Thank you again Greg. This was a keeper!


.

No, thank you

 

[Papias]

First-

Thanks WW for the quick reply. I too have lost long responses that way - what a pain!! They are out in the void, along with all those missing socks eaten by the dryer.......

More on that later.

I should mention that the DSS did show that errors are made, and that discussions of them often are good examples of fundamentalists moving the goalposts during the discussion. They certainly don't suggest that what we have in our Bibles is the same as the originals - quite the opposite. In addition to the mistakes (which by themselves are enough to show that the books change over time), they have plenty of changes and differences that affect the text.

Papias

 

[1whirlwind]

First-

Thanks WW for the quick reply. I too have lost long responses that way - what a pain!! They are out in the void, along with all those missing socks eaten by the dryer.......

More on that later.

I should mention that the DSS did show that errors are made, and that discussions of them often are good examples of fundamentalists moving the goalposts during the discussion. They certainly don't suggest that what we have in our Bibles is the same as the originals - quite the opposite. In addition to the mistakes (which by themselves are enough to show that the books change over time), they have plenty of changes and differences that affect the text.

Papias

Then we have dueling scholars. Bullinger, a Christian scholar, writes....

The Text was locked in, even set before the Massorites were put in charge of it. The work of the Sopherim, done under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon. They were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text; and, their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorized custodians and their work was to preserve it.

The Massorah is called "A Fence to the Scriptures," because it locked all words and letters in their places. This was to safeguard the Text, preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word!


​

(I'm still searching for socks too )

.
​

 

[Assyrian]

That is all I can do Assyrian. I don't agree with your interpretation.

Fair enough, but since you cannot support your interpretation of kinds and you cannot address my exegesis of the text, perhaps you can stop claiming you understanding of the text is what the text really says, and realise it is your interpretation.

Where does God tell you there is a difference? The bible can use synonyms too. If beast of the earth (Gen 1), and beast of the field (Gen 2) have to refer to completely different sorts of animals, does God (Gen 1) and LORD God (Gen 2) refer to completely different deities?

Jeremiah 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
​

Three types of man. His chosen (house of Israel and house of Judah), man and then beast...all are men.

Or there are two nations, Isreal and Judah, and after judging them God is promising to increase both the human population and animal population.

But more important, you didn't actually answer my question.

Didn't answer my question about the names of God in Genesis 1&2 either.

The Torah was penned by Moses...not an assortment of prophets.

Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

Exodus 34:27-28 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Exodus 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Numbers 33:2 And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these are their journeys according to their goings out.

Deuteronomy 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:22 Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

Mark 12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.​

Do any of these refer to Moses writing Genesis?
Exodus 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
What words was Moses commanded to write in a book? The message about God making war on the Amalekites. Where do you read this? In Exodus not Genesis. Do any of the verses you quoted talk about Moses writing Genesis?

The one account of Genesis is given in both chapters. Chapter two begins with the end of chapter one...they were "finished and all the host of them." If you read the words as written, with no chapter and verse numbers it would be....

Genesis 1:31-2:4 And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
​

Everything created and made before that last verse was encapsulated in "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth."

There is some debate about whether the title refers to the days of creation in Gen 1:1-2:3, or the the following account of Adam and Eve in the garden. But I am happy with it referring to the previous section as you say. The thing is, it means the creation account in Gen 1:1-2:3 finishes here. these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, "these" refers to Gen 1:1-2:3. From Gen 2:5 on, is not part of "these" in Gen 2:4, it is a different document.

Then He tells us that all the plants and herbs of the field (not the earth) were not yet "in the earth." Who is wheat symbolic of (gather My wheat into the barn)? Who are the tares....Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. The herbs and plants "of the field" are not literal vegetation.

Mankind was created on the sixth day as well as these people but they were not yet born, "every plant of the field before it was in the earth." In other words...they were the seed of mankind, already created but not yet born.

So the new document that starts in Gen 2:5 is speaking in metaphor and parables. I completely agree with that, though maybe not the precise metaphorical reading you see there. The thing is, if herb of the field is a metaphor, why not makind Adam from mud Isaiah 64:8 we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

There is no difference. The passages quoted by the geocentrists were written too. Why should I believe you and not them? Or why should I reject their interpretations when they conflict with science but not yours?

Because the geocentrists quoted them doesn't mean they correctly understood them. Many people quote things and have no clue. Some see [1Cor.14] as Paul teaching women should not speak and ask their husbands if they want to learn anything. They never go to the very next verse where Paul exclaims, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [14:36]

Clearly, but the same applies to creationist interpretations of Genesis. Why should we think geocentrists were mistaken because science contradicted their interpretation, but when science contradicts your interpretaiton it must be science that is wrong?

Because understanding the metaphorical words doesn't tell a different story, it just uses different words.

If you take the metaphorical words literally, the Isrelites flew out of Egypt which tells a different story from the literal account of them walking. It is exactly the same in Genesis. If you take the Genesis account literally and God made Adam from a lump of clay then clearly that contradicts mankind evolving, but if God making Adam from clay is a metaphor, just like "you are the potter and we are the clay", then there is no contradiction. It tells us a different aspect of the story, like God carrying the Israelites on Eagles' wings, but it doesn't tell a different story.

Not if God making Adam from clay is a metaphor like all the other potter metaphors in scripture. None of them are describing timescale.

He gives us a timescale. Man was created after all else and all those other things continued as they were.

Remember, in the account where God makes Adam form clay, he made him before he made the plants and trees, living creatures, livestock and birds. If the two timetables tell a different story then, as we have seen, it must mean it is metaphorical.

No conflict with evolution there, because the theory of evolution says nothing about God or his purpose.

We will have to disagree on this. To me, to be created in His image, isn't to evolve eventually into His image.

You need to explain this because I see no reason why God is able to make man in his image using mud, but isn't able to make man in his image through evolution. It isn't a problem with evolution, just you limiting God.

How can evolution produce a glob of whatever and at the same time produce another glob but one is male and one female. Then said globs find each other in this vast world and produce other globs and somehow those globs decide...okay, "I'll be a land mammal and you be a fish." And, they do this within God's timeframe as written in Genesis 1. And, they have dominion over the very things they once were.

You don't take the framework in Genesis 1 literally so I don't see why that is a problem. If you want to discuss how gender evolved then I suggest you go back to you thread on Male and Female...in the beginning. You claimed God making mankind male and female form the beginning somehow contradited evolution, yet the human race was male and female form the beginning. The fact you don't understand how gender could evolve is beside the point. The question is how the human evolution contradicts God creating mankind male and female.

That isn't dominion over the creatures you say we came from? "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." [1:28]

David was made king and then had dominion but David didn't become another creature...just the same creature with more authority.

Your point? I though your problem was mankind having dominion over animals when we are animals?

Genesis 8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
How can that mean anything other than among their own species, clan, family?

Different word, mishpachah which actually doesmean family, not miyn.

We don't have that much time to fiddle with. There was a previous age and who knows how many millions or billions of years it lasted but...in this present age, beginning with mankind on the sixth day...that option is gone.

Sure if you assume creationism is true, then evolution does not work, there is not enough time. But the question is how evolution works within its own framework, and the evidence is there was hundreds of millions of years for life to evolve..

I was being smart-aleck. If we are to honor our parents and our parents are apes then we shouldn't ogle them at the zoo.

They are only distant cousins, not you mum and dad

I'll take your word for it and stop digging. I don't remember.

That's ok.

True.

Just as the campbells soup can has nothing to do with evolution....neither do these misconceptions of men, godly men. The point is...No where does the Bible tell us the sun goes around the earth. Creation however is written.

Geocentrism was just as based on the written text as creationism, the only difference is, you believe creationism.

I think so. I actually believe the greater story, fuller understanding, is realized through the spiritual meaning.

Ok... so what exactly is the problem?

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

Then we have dueling scholars. Bullinger, a Christian scholar, writes....

Hold on, you are quoting Bullinger saying that the DSS were accurate?

Um, news flash - Bullinger died over 40 years before the DSS were even discovered. So why are you quoting Bullinger about the DSS? Did you think that Bullinger was talking about the DSS? He obviously wasn't, unless he's a prophet himself.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Again....then that is their problem. It is one you must discuss with them. There are many misunderstandings of scripture but the scripture itself...stands.

Of course scripture stands. The question is why I should accept your view of what scripture says but not their view, why could they misunderstand scripture but you can't? Why is it when their understanding of scripture contradicts science it is must be their interpretation that is wrong, but when your understanding of scripture contradicts science it is science that is wrong?

The point is well taken but that in itself is the problem. It isn't in the text. Were it somewhere within the pages then this discussion would be very different.

Heliocentrism and a spherical earth aren't in the text, neither is evolution. Why is it only evolution is a problem? Sure it contradicts your interpretation of the text, but a round earth and heliocentrism contradicted people's interpretations in the past, yet these sciences are accepted now without being found anywhere in scripture.

The literal and figurative shouldn't combat each other but should bring deeper meaning...

The figurative is the deeper meaning of God bearing the Israelites on Eagles' wings. You don't combine the figurative and the literal to get a deeper meaning, you drop the literal because it is not what the passage is saying.

...Evolution doesn't fit in any part of what is written.

It does if God used evolution to create all the different species. It is the same as heliocentrism fits what is written because the bible says God created the heavens and the earth, and that is how they work. But the bible does not mention evolution, just as it doesn't mention heliocentrism. They are still true, and they are how God made the universe whether the bible gives us the details or not.

It doesn't, same as it doesn't give us an understanding the earth is really spherical or that it goes round the sun instead of the sun going round the earth.

But Assyrian...He does give us a description of creation...He doesn't mention the sun going around the earth or tell us the earth is flat. Nor does He mention evolution which contradicts creation. Using that argument doesn't seem valid to me.

He gives us a description of the sun hurrying across the sky and the earth being fixed. He talks about the four corner of the earth. You don't interpret that as geocentrism and flat earth, but people did. Just because people interpret the bible as teaching flat earth, geocentrism or special creation, doesn't mean they are true. Yet the bible didn't contain secret messages teaching a round earth or heliocentrism for people to say, ah yes it was there all the time I see it now. So I don't see why you insist the bible has to give a description of evolution.

One would have to assume that Luke lied in his account to not accept that the same lineage from Abraham to Adam would apply to the other account.

Luke did not comment on the other account, whatever combinations you make from the two genealogies is your construction. Luke did not tell you to do it, so you can hardly accuse him of lying if your construction is not right. Nor can he be asked to accept responsibility for a genealogy he only described as 'supposed'.

But the kinds were their kinds, their types, their species. All ravens might mean a black raven, a small raven, a whatever raven but it would still be a raven. Their kinds are produced as their kinds as only their kinds mate.

As you say kinds mean the different types, and they mate with other member of the same kind or a closely related kind, but where does it say the offspring has to be exactly the same? Who says the next generation can't be slightly different? And if a kind, say wolf kind, varies over the generations and diverges into grey wolves and dogs and dogs diverge into poodles and labradors, aren't these separate kinds too?

A - Where does 'the circle of the earth' tell you the earth is spherical rather than flat? The bible does not tell us the earth is a sphere.

A circle is a sphere, an orb....round.

That is an argument based on an English dictionary, not the meaning of the Hebrew. But assuming for the moment the Hebrew word could mean a flat circle or a sphere, unless the bible distinguishes between these meanings and specifies it really does mean a sphere rather than a flat circle, then it is not teaching us the earth is a sphere. In fact the Hebrew word refers to a figure you draw with a compass, a flat circle.

Ten is the perfection of Divine order. I'm not sure how that applies here but I believe the virgins are the ten lost tribes, today's Christians. Just as the virgins, all love the Lord and yet...the foolish ones don't have truth. They listen to man and they are and shall be...deceived.

So five of the tribes are foolish add five wise? As a great man once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Yes, I know but I haven't seen a definition given for the spiritual meaning of the number.

Remember when Jesus told Peter not just to forgive 7 times, but 70 times 7? This isn't hinting at some spiritual meaning of the number 7, nor is it saying the 491st time he really gets it. It is simply saying that we keep on forgiving.

Well...that is what this discussion is about. I, of course, vehemently disagree with your understanding.

You are free to disagree of course, though the fossil evidence is there whether you agree with it or not but wouldn't the evolution of humans from earlier hominids fit your interpretation of two different creations, man in Genesis 1 and Adam in Genesis 2?

Interesting, you read a description of the creation and you interpret it figuratively.

It is to be seen in that way.

With all your figurative interpretations of Genesis and other creation accounts in the bible, I really don't see how you have a problem with evolution. It only contradicts some of the details in the creation accounts if you try to interpret them literally, not if you take them figuratively, as you take so much of the creation accounts already.

Is it back to their own land or back to the "place where you were created?"

That is where we all return and are judged. Where were we all created?

Man was created on the sixth day. Within those that first walked the earth was seed...already created and waiting for their generation to be born. After that He rested, His work was finished...no more creation. After that He formed us in our mother's womb. It is written that He rested from what He had made and created...no mention of forming.
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I think you are running into two problems here. One is your problem with synonyms you seem to think create and form are two completely different processes, whereas the bible uses them interchangeably, often in poetic parallel, saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way.

Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel:
Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it
Amos 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind,

Create and form may point to different aspects of God's work, but it does not mean they are completely different processes at completely different times. They are both simply different ways the bible describes God's act of creation.

Your second problem is that you are have this idea creating only occurred in Genesis 1 and that God's work since then has been forming. And you are trying to read this idea into all the passages that that talk of God's ongoing work of creation. If we look at God's judgement of the Ammonites, in the land they were created, you seem to think the last judgement is going to take place back in Eden, but where does the bible say this? The passage is not even talking about the last judgement but the kingdom of the Ammonites being destroyed by the Babylonians.

Ezek 21:28 "And you, son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the Ammonites and concerning their reproach; say, A sword, a sword is drawn for the slaughter...
30 Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.
31 And I will pour out my indignation upon you; I will blow upon you with the fire of my wrath, and I will deliver you into the hands of brutish men, skillful to destroy.

The Ammonites were going to be destroyed by the sword, by brutal men skill in warfare and destruction. The Ammonites were destroyed back in their homeland, the kingdom of Ammon, which God describes as the place they were created.

Remember...He tells us He was finished...He rested from all He created and made, including all the host of heaven and earth. That's us. He gave man the ability to produce the next generation...He didn't have to create them again.

Yet he keeps describing his ongoing creation of nations, future generations, blacksmiths... You realise the days in Genesis 1 aren't 6 24 hour periods but much longer periods. Is the seventh day 24 hours? Or could it be longer? If it is longer has it finished yet, has it even started? You seem to assume it is in the past, though there is no mention of the evening of the seventh day which is when it is supposed to start. In the NT we see the seventh day and the Sabbath interpreted as a picture of our rest in God, of what is there for us in the future in Christ. So why interpret it as something that happened in the past? Well one obvious reason is Genesis uses the past tense. God rested. But the bible often uses the past tense in prophecy. Sometimes it is because it is a prophetic vision, sometimes to describe the certainty and completeness of God action. Isaiah 5:13 Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge. Rev 20:4 They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

If you want to find an evening before the Sabbath, a Sabbath day where God lay still and did no work, look in Mark 15:42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Well, I have to alter the eyes, widen the nose, lengthen the dress. Other than that "it's a beautiful portrait and I'm so happy with it."

For shame whirlwind, painting them in skimpy clothes

I don't know Assyrian...I'll think about it tonight. Interesting question.
.

....

The Hebrew word does mean dusk but as shown in Strong's it is....(dusk + day). I'm not certain what that means but if it is as it appears to be, evening means the dusk plus the day, then would not the high noon to nightfall be correct? Then the day would be sunrise to sunset, morning and evening.

The '+ day' is simply saying the word is sometimes used in the bible along with the word day. Strong still says it means evening, or as the AV sometimes puts it in its quaint English, eventide.

It is a shadow of things to come for it speaks of the millennium. However, the day has begun....

Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.
​

All of that is past tense, "ended His work, He had made, He rested from what He had made, He sanctified, He had rested." So, the day has begun and appears to have closed for "in it He had rested." That determines the day as having ended. But it is interesting that there is the absence of "the evening and the morning were the seventh day."

I have already mentioned the Hebrew use of tenses. One thing worth saying is that Hebrew tenses are quite different from English verb tenses and don't actually describe when an event takes place, past present or future, but whether the action was complete or incomplete. so the perfect tense is often used to describe actions that did happen in the past, but they can also describe actions that will be completed in the future.

*puts down can opener, steps away from worms*

Is that telling us the time frame was different than the other days? Is it saying that the night of that seventh day is still going on...night being Satan's time? .

Not in a creation day Psalm 139:12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. Not every reference to night or dark is a metaphor for evil, besides the description of the seventh day in Genesis does not actually mention night. As for time frame, YECs have an argument that if the seventh day was a literal day we commemorate in the Sabbath, it is not much of a pattern for the working week if the first 6 days of the week were ages long and the seventh just a day. Their argument only works if you assume the seventh day of creation was a literal 24 hour day. If the days are all metaphorical, then there also more scope for different time frames, the seventh day existing in eternity or in the spiritual realm, which is one interpretation of the seventh day rest in Hebrew 3&4.

 

[Assyrian]

YouTube - Monty Python - Spam

 

[1whirlwind]

Fair enough, but since you cannot support your interpretation of kinds and you cannot address my exegesis of the text, perhaps you can stop claiming you understanding of the text is what the text really says, and realise it is your interpretation.

I didn't say I couldn't support it but that I have done what I could. To me, the support has been accomplished and there is nothing more I can say to bolster it further. You accept it or you don't. I repeat....

Kinds, as described in the Blue Letter Interlinear are.....families, kindred, kinds, clan, tribe, species.

Kinds, as described in the dictionary are...nature, family, lineage, category
​

So, where it is written that they were to "bring forth the living creature after their kind," means they/we are to produce offspring within one's family, one's lineage, one's species...one's kind.

WW -
Jeremiah 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

A -
Or there are two nations, Isreal and Judah, and after judging them God is promising to increase both the human population and animal population.

The two, house of Israel (Christians) and house of Judah (Jews), are one nation, His holy nation...for all twelve tribes comprise the nation of Israel. In the above verse He doesn't say He will increase populations but that He will sow His chosen ones with "seed of man, seed of beast." Does that mean that the three types will intermingle producing mixed offspring or that He will place us among man and beast (both being humans) in order to teach? I don't know.

But more important, you didn't actually answer my question.

Didn't answer my question about the names of God in Genesis 1&2 either.

Where does God tell you there is a difference? The bible can use synonyms too. If beast of the earth (Gen 1), and beast of the field (Gen 2) have to refer to completely different sorts of animals, does God (Gen 1) and LORD God (Gen 2) refer to completely different deities?

The above verse in Jeremiah shows the difference in literal beasts and man being referred to as beast. I'll add....

Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
​

A literal beast, tiger, bear, etc....doesn't cry unto God and change their evil ways. The ways of a literal beast are not evil for they live as God intended them to. It is humanity that must turn from their ways. Consider too who the beasts of Revelation are.

Your question about "God," and the "Lord God," in the two chapters I overlooked. And, I must say, I really never noticed or thought about that difference before. Interesting question.

They are different titles for the same being. For instance, God or Elohim, is connected with creation, God is the Creator. Other titles are The Lord = Yahveh, The LORD (all caps) = Adonai, Almighty = Shaddai, Most High = Elyon.

It is the same with people. Father, son, husband, friend, scientist, football fan, Christian...different names/titles but all are the same being.

Do any of these refer to Moses writing Genesis?

Exodus 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
What words was Moses commanded to write in a book? The message about God making war on the Amalekites. Where do you read this? In Exodus not Genesis. Do any of the verses you quoted talk about Moses writing Genesis?

Specifically? No. Nor is it written that Moses penned Deuteronomy, or Leviticus but....we know he did. However, it is written.....

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 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.
​

God tells us that Moses wrote of Jesus. Jesus was "in the beginning," or in the genesis of creation and He made all things. So, Moses wrote of Him in the beginning, in the genesis....Moses penned Genesis.

There is some debate about whether the title refers to the days of creation in Gen 1:1-2:3, or the the following account of Adam and Eve in the garden. But I am happy with it referring to the previous section as you say. The thing is, it means the creation account in Gen 1:1-2:3 finishes here. these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, "these" refers to Gen 1:1-2:3. From Gen 2:5 on, is not part of "these" in Gen 2:4, it is a different document.

All things were created within that time frame....all things and that includes all the generations of the created entities. Those future generations are in the seed. The seed of man is either heaven or is earth. We are "of the earth" and upon receiving salvation...we are then of the heavens.

So the new document that starts in Gen 2:5 is speaking in metaphor and parables. I completely agree with that, though maybe not the precise metaphorical reading you see there. The thing is, if herb of the field is a metaphor, why not makind Adam from mud Isaiah 64:8 we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Yes, it speaks metaphorically but it speaks of literal events and entities. Adam was literal and God formed him to be the first man in the line to the Savior. The herb of the field is a metaphor but it represents people...real people. Same with beasts. I'm not sure what your point is about the clay???

Clearly, but the same applies to creationist interpretations of Genesis. Why should we think geocentrists were mistaken because science contradicted their interpretation, but when science contradicts your interpretaiton it must be science that is wrong?

Yes, the same would apply. But, we have the written word and need not rely on anyone's interpretation. This takes us back to the beginning of the thread. The Creation is written...evolution is not even hinted at. To believe evolution you must overlook what is written.

If you take the metaphorical words literally, the Isrelites flew out of Egypt which tells a different story from the literal account of them walking. It is exactly the same in Genesis. If you take the Genesis account literally and God made Adam from a lump of clay then clearly that contradicts mankind evolving, but if God making Adam from clay is a metaphor, just like "you are the potter and we are the clay", then there is no contradiction. It tells us a different aspect of the story, like God carrying the Israelites on Eagles' wings, but it doesn't tell a different story.

The metaphorical words, such as eagle's wings, is just a flowery, poetic way of telling the true story. He is the eagle and His wings protect and carry us away from harm, away from bondage. As the eagle and His wings are a metaphor for the literal God the clay is a metaphor for the literal makeup of earth and water....flesh and spirit. Adam was flesh/earth and God formed him with living water...He molded the earth/water - the clay and.......

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
​

It is the same with us if we are to be of the "heavens." It is His Spirit, and the living water/His Words/Truth that gives us life....true life:

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
​

Remember, in the account where God makes Adam form clay, he made him before he made the plants and trees, living creatures, livestock and birds. If the two timetables tell a different story then, as we have seen, it must mean it is metaphorical.

Mankind was created on the sixth day however of those men...."there was not a man to till the ground." Why? Because until that time men weren't given His Words, "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth." The rain is knowledge and understanding. Man/earth wasn't yet ready....

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
​

So Adam was formed to "till the ground" or to bring knowledge and understanding to the earth/mankind by planting seeds of truth. The plants, trees, herbs (men) were here but not the rain that would turn dry earth into malleable clay so it could be formed. This continues today. We are nothing more than trees, plants....dry earth until His Spirit forms us into a child of God.

WW - We will have to disagree on this. To me, to be created in His image, isn't to evolve eventually into His image.

A - You need to explain this because I see no reason why God is able to make man in his image using mud, but isn't able to make man in his image through evolution. It isn't a problem with evolution, just you limiting God.

I understand you thinking that but....I don't agree. Along with man being earth and water (which fits into evolution) you have a set time-frame, you have man being created, not evolving, and being created in His image and His likeness, and of entities being restricted to producing within their own kinds/species....none of which coordinate with evolution.

WW -
How can evolution produce a glob of whatever and at the same time produce another glob but one is male and one female. Then said globs find each other in this vast world and produce other globs and somehow those globs decide...okay, "I'll be a land mammal and you be a fish." And, they do this within God's timeframe as written in Genesis 1. And, they have dominion over the very things they once were.

A - You don't take the framework in Genesis 1 literally so I don't see why that is a problem. If you want to discuss how gender evolved then I suggest you go back to you thread on Male and Female...in the beginning.

You claimed God making mankind male and female form the beginning somehow contradited evolution, yet the human race was male and female form the beginning. The fact you don't understand how gender could evolve is beside the point. The question is how the human evolution contradicts God creating mankind male and female.

You're right. That wouldn't be a contradiction. Being male and female from the beginning...with either creation or evolution is a draw. But, there are still other points to consider.

WW - David was made king and then had dominion but David didn't become another creature...just the same creature with more authority.

A- Your point? I though your problem was mankind having dominion over animals when we are animals?

The point is God gave us dominion over the creatures you believe we evolved from. Your comparing that to David doesn't carry weight. David didn't evolve into another creature as you say man did. David had dominion, or authority over his subjects but he was still a human. God gives us dominion, or authority, over creatures but they are not human.

Different word, mishpachah which actually doesmean family, not miyn.

Is "miyn" not also...family, species?

Sure if you assume creationism is true, then evolution does not work, there is not enough time. But the question is how evolution works within its own framework, and the evidence is there was hundreds of millions of years for life to evolve..

What happened in the previous age isn't detailed. That was the age of hundreds and millions of years of life. It is in this present age that mankind was created in His image.

They are only distant cousins, not you mum and dad

I do have some hairy, knuckle dragging, distant cousins but even they don't climb trees. I try not to load them up with bananas each family get-together.

That's ok.

Geocentrism was just as based on the written text as creationism, the only difference is, you believe creationism.

I try not to base anything on man's "isms" but rely on His Word. The creation is written.

WW - I think so. I actually believe the greater story, fuller understanding, is realized through the spiritual meaning.

A - Ok... so what exactly is the problem?

The problem is the spiritual meaning will never conflict with the literal. It is a deeper understanding of what is written.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

YouTube - Monty Python - Spam

Okay....tears rolling down my face! Spam, spam, spam, spam. Too funny.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

WW wrote:



Hold on, you are quoting Bullinger saying that the DSS were accurate?

Um, news flash - Bullinger died over 40 years before the DSS were even discovered. So why are you quoting Bullinger about the DSS? Did you think that Bullinger was talking about the DSS? He obviously wasn't, unless he's a prophet himself.

Papias

No. I'm not saying anything about the DSS being accurate. I'm simply quoting what Bullinger wrote (while he was alive ) No more, no less.



.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

It would seem you "refute" scripture with science. Noah wasn't real, and neither was the flood? Alright, you can choose to believe the opinion of science over the Word of God, that is your choice. It is clear in detailing every single living creature on the earth -and- sky was destroyed, hence anything but a global flood is out of the question.

The Biblical flood is a classic example of where a better interpretation of the Bible and a better understanding of science has led to a reconciliation of ideas that at one point seemed diametrically opposite.

Here is a good explanation of how the Biblical flood may have occurred that is quite consistent with the scientific evidence.

When the Chinese climbed Chomolunga (as they call Everest) in 1975, they brought back rocks from the summit that had fossil shells- indicating that either ocean water had covered the summit, or that the summit rocks were originally formed below sea level.

Plate tectonic theory today holds that the latter is most likely true- that the rocks that make up the Himalayas were originally formed in a shallow sea (the Tethys Sea) sandwiched between the Indian and Asian continents, and were pushed up as these two land masses collided.

But what is interesting here is that before plate tectonic activity started, mountain building processes were not yet active, and so the earth must have been quite flat. As a matter of fact, if ocean water was as abundant as it now is, the entire surface of the earth may originally have been entirely below sea level- and the first dry land would only have formed after plate tectonic activity started.

So if the Biblical flood had occurred just after the first land mass appeared above the ocean surface, it wouldn't have taken much of a storm to entirely inundate the new land area; much like Bangladesh is so badly flooded when an Indian ocean typhoon or tsunami occurs.

Now paleontologists are quick to point out that there is no evidence that people were present on the new land when the first continent was formed, so linking Noah's adventure to an early period of the earth's history, when only a small amount of easily-flooded dry land was available, is speculative.

A more likely theory regarding the Biblical flood is that it was actually a massive flood that affected the entire Mediterranean Ocean basin, which at one time was the cradle of civilization. This theory is widely supported by considerable geologic evidence, which suggests that the northward movement of the African plate once closed off the Gibraltar Strait. Since more water evaporates off the surface of the Mediterranean Ocean than flows into it from rivers, closure of the Straits of Gibraltar would have caused the Mediterranean to dry up- forcing the early civilizations that lived in this area to move down into the basin as the water level dropped.

Eventually, continuing plate motion caused downwarping of the earth's crust at Gibraltar, allowing Atlantic ocean water to catastrophically flow back in and fill the Mediterranean Ocean basin- which would have wiped out all the people living there.

The possibility of a massive, but not global, flood that wiped out much of the civilization that existed at that time may be supported by a verse in the New Testament:

2 Peter 2:
5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people

Here is another well written summary, complete with many references, that explains this further: The Mediterranean Flood.

.

 

[Greg1234]

The Biblical flood is a classic example of where a better interpretation of the Bible.

Creationism is not tied to the flood, or the age of the earth. Meaning whether the flood was global or regional, man was created as man. Whether the earth is 19 trillion years old or two minutes old, man was created as man. Whether the animals were completely vegetarian or not, man was created as man. Whether the unverse is heliocentric or not, man was created as man.

Its funny watching you guys make circles around creationism but you don't attack it directly.

Kind of like a pack of hyenas running circles around a bear. You make a lot of noise, and put on a fine show, but you stay beyond the reach of those massive claws.

 

[1whirlwind]

Assyrian:

Of course scripture stands. The question is why I should accept your view of what scripture says but not their view, why could they misunderstand scripture but you can't? Why is it when their understanding of scripture contradicts science it is must be their interpretation that is wrong, but when your understanding of scripture contradicts science it is science that is wrong?

Me wrong?

It is not my understanding or view of Scripture but Scripture itself that contradicts this theory of science...it does not contradict science itself.

Heliocentrism and a spherical earth aren't in the text, neither is evolution. Why is it only evolution is a problem? Sure it contradicts your interpretation of the text, but a round earth and heliocentrism contradicted people's interpretations in the past, yet these sciences are accepted now without being found anywhere in scripture.

Evolution contradicts Creation. Creation is written.

The figurative is the deeper meaning of God bearing the Israelites on Eagles' wings. You don't combine the figurative and the literal to get a deeper meaning, you drop the literal because it is not what the passage is saying.

I don't drop the literal in order to understand the spiritual. When the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, a literal fact, it was the Lord literally leading them (He is the eagle and they were carried on His wings.)

WW -
...Evolution doesn't fit in any part of what is written.

A -
It does if God used evolution to create all the different species. It is the same as heliocentrism fits what is written because the bible says God created the heavens and the earth, and that is how they work. But the bible does not mention evolution, just as it doesn't mention heliocentrism. They are still true, and they are how God made the universe whether the bible gives us the details or not.

Then would He not have written....And God said, Let Us evolve man into our image and our likeness, eventually giving them dominion over the creatures they are to evolve from. And when they finally evolve into a human they should be fruitful and multiply and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning was the millioneth or billioneth year of evolution? Or, something to that effect.

He gives us a description of the sun hurrying across the sky and the earth being fixed. He talks about the four corner of the earth. You don't interpret that as geocentrism and flat earth, but people did. Just because people interpret the bible as teaching flat earth, geocentrism or special creation, doesn't mean they are true. Yet the bible didn't contain secret messages teaching a round earth or heliocentrism for people to say, ah yes it was there all the time I see it now. So I don't see why you insist the bible has to give a description of evolution.

He doesn't have to give an explanation for evolution as the subject has been covered with what He did tell us. That is my point. He has explained what He did (whether or not we understand it)and for man to form a contradictory view isn't a good thing. If what is written is wrong or needs to be understood in a deeper way then within Scripture that way would be covered. So far, I haven't seen it.

Luke did not comment on the other account, whatever combinations you make from the two genealogies is your construction. Luke did not tell you to do it, so you can hardly accuse him of lying if your construction is not right. Nor can he be asked to accept responsibility for a genealogy he only described as 'supposed'.

The genealogy wasn't "as was supposed." Only the relationship of Jesus to Joseph was "as was supposed." You're correct in that Luke didn't comment on the other geneology but that doesn't matter. The truth of both is still the truth. The line from Adam to Abraham and Abraham to David would still be the same line, the same great, greats and more great, greats.

As you say kinds mean the different types, and they mate with other member of the same kind or a closely related kind, but where does it say the offspring has to be exactly the same? Who says the next generation can't be slightly different? And if a kind, say wolf kind, varies over the generations and diverges into grey wolves and dogs and dogs diverge into poodles and labradors, aren't these separate kinds too?

No, I think not. Whether wolf or dog they are within their kinds. Wolfs don't become cats. That would be a species jumping into unchartered territory by evolving into another species.

That is an argument based on an English dictionary, not the meaning of the Hebrew. But assuming for the moment the Hebrew word could mean a flat circle or a sphere, unless the bible distinguishes between these meanings and specifies it really does mean a sphere rather than a flat circle, then it is not teaching us the earth is a sphere. In fact the Hebrew word refers to a figure you draw with a compass, a flat circle.

If you draw a circle with a compass it is a round circle on a flat piece of paper. It doesn't mean the circle is flat...just the paper is flat. Now if the one drawing the circle was artistic enough to use shading then the image of the roundness would be more evident.

A - So five of the tribes are foolish add five wise? As a great man once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Perhaps...But you asked.

Remember when Jesus told Peter not just to forgive 7 times, but 70 times 7? This isn't hinting at some spiritual meaning of the number 7, nor is it saying the 491st time he really gets it. It is simply saying that we keep on forgiving.

We are to "keep on forgiving" but....

Seven is spiritual perfection. Ten is perfection of Divine order. Seventy is a combination of two of the perfect numbers, seven and ten. It signifies perfect spiritual order carried out with all spiritual power and significance. Both spirit and order are greatly emphasised.

A few examples given...
​

Seventy elders furnished Israel's great Tribunal, afterwards called the Sanhedrin.

Seventy disciples sent out by the Lord prefigure the mighty host which followed them in spirit and in power.

The number is especially connected with Jerusalem for the city kept it's sabbaths seventy years, which Judah was in Babylon.

And seventy sevens were determined upon it to complete its transgression, and bring in everlasting righteousness for it.

~ Numbers in Scripture
​

Biblical numbers, as do names....can carry great meaning (I don't know if that is always true or sometimes true).

You are free to disagree of course, though the fossil evidence is there whether you agree with it or not but wouldn't the evolution of humans from earlier hominids fit your interpretation of two different creations, man in Genesis 1 and Adam in Genesis 2?

No, for there weren't two creations. Mankind was created and Adam was formed.

With all your figurative interpretations of Genesis and other creation accounts in the bible, I really don't see how you have a problem with evolution. It only contradicts some of the details in the creation accounts if you try to interpret them literally, not if you take them figuratively, as you take so much of the creation accounts already.

Understanding the spiritual doesn't negate the literal.

I think you are running into two problems here. One is your problem with synonyms you seem to think create and form are two completely different processes, whereas the bible uses them interchangeably, often in poetic parallel, saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way.

Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel:

Jacob, as all mankind, was created. Jacob, unlike mankind, was also formed...formed as Israel for a specific destiny.

Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."

Those called by His name have been created (as has every human) for His glory but we, His children that carry His name, are also formed...the others are not.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it
Amos 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind,

I'm not sure about those two verses and how they would apply to this topic. However I will add....

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

​

To form and create should not, in my opinion, be understood as meaning the same thing.

Create and form may point to different aspects of God's work, but it does not mean they are completely different processes at completely different times. They are both simply different ways the bible describes God's act of creation.

He is telling us more than that Assyrian.

Your second problem is that you are have this idea creating only occurred in Genesis 1 and that God's work since then has been forming. And you are trying to read this idea into all the passages that that talk of God's ongoing work of creation. If we look at God's judgement of the Ammonites, in the land they were created, you seem to think the last judgement is going to take place back in Eden, but where does the bible say this? The passage is not even talking about the last judgement but the kingdom of the Ammonites being destroyed by the Babylonians.

The Ammonites were going to be destroyed by the sword, by brutal men skill in warfare and destruction. The Ammonites were destroyed back in their homeland, the kingdom of Ammon, which God describes as the place they were created.

That isn't what I'm saying. Their judgment, as well as ours, takes place where we were created...and that wasn't on earth. He may destroy the Ammonites on earth but they are judged where they "were created," not where they were born.

Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
​

Yet he keeps describing his ongoing creation of nations, future generations, blacksmiths... You realise the days in Genesis 1 aren't 6 24 hour periods but much longer periods. Is the seventh day 24 hours? Or could it be longer? If it is longer has it finished yet, has it even started? You seem to assume it is in the past, though there is no mention of the evening of the seventh day which is when it is supposed to start. In the NT we see the seventh day and the Sabbath interpreted as a picture of our rest in God, of what is there for us in the future in Christ. So why interpret it as something that happened in the past? Well one obvious reason is Genesis uses the past tense. God rested. But the bible often uses the past tense in prophecy. Sometimes it is because it is a prophetic vision, sometimes to describe the certainty and completeness of God action.

Isaiah 5:13 Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge.

His people are in captivity if they don't have truth...they are being misled.
​

Rev 20:4 They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

John was taken to the future when that was written so it would be written as having happened.

If you want to find an evening before the Sabbath, a Sabbath day where God lay still and did no work, look in Mark 15:42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

How does that apply?

I have already mentioned the Hebrew use of tenses. One thing worth saying is that Hebrew tenses are quite different from English verb tenses and don't actually describe when an event takes place, past present or future, but whether the action was complete or incomplete. so the perfect tense is often used to describe actions that did happen in the past, but they can also describe actions that will be completed in the future.

*puts down can opener, steps away from worms*

Thats a can I don't want to open (yet) either.

Not in a creation day

Psalm 139:12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.

That verse speaks of the Lord. He formed the light and created the darkness.

Not every reference to night or dark is a metaphor for evil, besides the description of the seventh day in Genesis does not actually mention night.

None of the days mention night! Rather night is excluded from all of them. Isn't that strange? I'm still trying to understand what that means.

As for time frame, YECs have an argument that if the seventh day was a literal day we commemorate in the Sabbath, it is not much of a pattern for the working week if the first 6 days of the week were ages long and the seventh just a day. Their argument only works if you assume the seventh day of creation was a literal 24 hour day. If the days are all metaphorical, then there also more scope for different time frames, the seventh day existing in eternity or in the spiritual realm, which is one interpretation of the seventh day rest in Hebrew 3&4.

As all of the seven days were during God's time of creation then I attribute His reckoning of time to them....one day as a thousand years. I see those seven days of creation as being completed. The next day would be the eighth and it means....new beginnings. The formation of Adam was a new beginning and with it man's concept of time when a day means a day. [Hebrews 4], to me, speaks of the millennium.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Its funny watching you guys make circles around creationism but you don't attack it directly.

Kind of like a pack of hyenas running circles around a bear. You make a lot of noise, and put on a fine show, but you stay beyond the reach of those massive claws.

First, I think we need to be more respectful of each other's opinions, and careful of what we say; after all, every person here is a Christian who fundamentally believes that God created the Universe. So in that regard, everyone here on this thread is a creationist.

So here are a few verses that remind us of how we should be debating this matter with our fellow Christians:

Proverbs 6 gives us clear instructions in this matter:

16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

We also need to take heed of what Jesus tells us in Galatians 5

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

and Ephesians 4:

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

--------------------------------

But now to address what you wrote in the first part of your post:

First, you only included part of my comment, which then took it out of context; here is the entire comment I made:

The Biblical flood is a classic example of where a better interpretation of the Bible and a better understanding of science has led to a reconciliation of ideas that at one point seemed diametrically opposite.

You then stated the following:

Creationism is not tied to the flood, or the age of the earth. Meaning whether the flood was global or regional, man was created as man. Whether the earth is 19 trillion years old or two minutes old, man was created as man. Whether the animals were completely vegetarian or not, man was created as man. Whether the unverse is heliocentric or not, man was created as man.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make with the flood example: that there have been other instances where an apparent major conflict between a Biblical interpretation and a scientific finding may not be as great as first thought.

Those who brought up the matter of geocentrism were trying to make the same point: that for over 1700 years, all religious leaders took a very fundamentalist position and declared that their interpretation of the Bible was the only correct one, and absolutely established that the earth was the centre of the Universe. Bit by bit, scientific reasoning prevailed and now there is overwhelming acceptance that the earth revolves around the sun- not withstanding the continuing belief even today by some Christians, who call themselves fundamentalists, and who quote numerous Bible verses that they insist prove that the sun revolves around the earth.

I believe the conflict between so-called creationists and theistic evolutionists is a similar one, where the apparent differences in opinion will eventually be found to be nowhere near as great as we think.

So what is being debated here:

1. that God created the Universe? NO!

2. that God created Adam and Eve? NO!

3. that evolution doesn't happen? NO! (or, I guess I would hope not- otherwise, animal breeding or the outbreak of new viruses, like that which causes AIDS, couldn't be explained).

So what is being debated here, among people who have already professed to being Christians, and our therefore our brothers in Christ, saved by the sacrifice of Jesus, can be summed up in two questions:

1. how many of the multitude of living organisms that are on the earth today were created by God in an act of instant and special creation?

2. how many of the multitude of living organisms that are on the earth today came from predecessor life forms through the process of evolution?

------------------------

Let me leave you with one final verse from the Bible:

Matthew 5:

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

.

 

[Greg1234]

First, I think we need to be more respectful of each other's opinions, and careful of what we say; after all, every person here is a Christian who fundamentally believes that God created the Universe. So in that regard, everyone here on this thread is a creationist.

Not exactly. Man was created. The retraction to the universe is not viable either. Hawkins, like Darwin already has found the creator. What the Darwinst is doing is something like herding, where there is the funneling into a set point for attack.

So here are a few verses that remind us of how we should be debating this matter with our fellow Christians:

Having a christian icon does not enable passivity in the treatment of Darwinism.



--------------------------------

First, you only included part of my comment, which then took it out of context; here is the entire comment I made:

You are attempting to use the flood as a refutation of creationism. See last post.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make with the flood example: that there have been other instances where an apparent major conflict between a Biblical interpretation and a scientific finding may not be as great as first thought.

Scientific evidence proves creationism. Try to work it into your interpretation of Genesis.

Those who brought up the matter of geocentricism were trying to make the same point:that for over 1700 years, all religious leaders

All of the scientific community, religious and non religious, adhered to geocentricism. The sun moving across the sky as observed from earth is accurate. Through which visualization, a key component in poetic verse, can be, and is utilized.

took a very fundamentalist position and declared that their interpretation of the Bible was the only correct one, and absolutely established that the earth was the centre of the Universe.

Scientific evidence today is showing us that bacteria remain bacteria. There are still people today who quote the bible in support of Darwinism.

Bit by bit, scientific reasoning prevailed and now there is overwhelming acceptance that the earth revolves around the sun- not withstanding the continuing belief even today by some Christians, who call themselves fundamentalists, and who quote numerous Bible verses that they insist prove that the sun revolves around the earth.

It has been empirically shown that adaptation is an encoded program and bit by bit in testing, that random mutation is not viable. Though there are still fundamentalists who quote Darwinist doctrine, even "Origin of Species" which they insist proves that random mutations are a viable source.

I believe the conflict between so-called creationists and theistic evolutionists

Creationists. "So-called" is closer to you than me.

is a similar one, where the apparent differences in opinion will eventually be found to be nowhere near as great as we think.

The problem is not about differences. Anybody can see that. As a theist, empirical evidence which strengthens the teleological argument would seemingly by acknowledged. But when it is presented, something peculiar happens. The "TE" having to make a choice between empirical data on an intelligent mechanism for adaptation (more evidence for creationism) and the long held random mutational doctrine (Darwinism) chooses random mutation.

At first you make nothing of it. Then you begin to see that it was never about the evidence. There is a foundational and pure, unfiltered hatred for Creationism. And it doesnt matter what evidence is presented, how many tests reveal, there is the desire to not be associated with creationism at whatever cost. So great is the desire, it surpasses even the belief in God and evidence which reveals its work are rendered neutral in light of the implications. There is the attempt to contain it, but sometimes it leaks out. Some "TE" here add the "neo" prefix. Some here have said Creationists don't go to school, have lesser education etc

So you may continue this thing you're doing with the bible, or you may drop it entirely. Either way, it is completely ineffectual to me.

So what is being debated here

:

1. that God created the Universe? NO!

2. that God created Adam and Eve? NO!

3. that evolution doesn't happen? NO! (or, I guess I would hope not- otherwise, animal breeding or the outbreak of new viruses, like that which causes AIDS, couldn't be explained).

So what is being debated here, among people who have already professed to being Christians, and our therefore our brothers in Christ, saved by the sacrifice of Jesus, can be summed up in two questions:

1. how many of the multitude of living organisms that are on the earth today were created by God in an act of instant and special creation?

2. how many of the multitude of living organisms that are on the earth today came from predecessor life forms through the process of evolution?

------------------------

Let me leave you with one final verse from the Bible:

Matthew 5:

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

.

What is being debated here can be summed up in one statement: Bacteria remain bacteria. The mechanism which takes it to a man, the length of time it takes to become a man, and the limits of adaptation within created organisms including bacteria are all inclusive points of interest.