Evolution

[1whirlwind]

But obviously he will lie by doing it one way but saying another?

What?

Um, WW, Geometry 101 - A circle is a 2 dimensional flat object. You can't stretch out a tent over a sphere.

Um, common sense 101....Only if drawing a circle on a piece of paper would a circle be a 2 dimensional flat object. Did God create the earth on paper? Is it a flat object? Does He sit on a piece of paper?

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

God didn't write the Bible so he didn't tell us anything. The ancient Hebrews told us how they thought the world existed. God, however, has proven in his physical universe that the Hebrew were wrong. God's physical creation trumps your flawed Biblical interpretation.

Unbelievable!

And the lie of evolution marches on. God lies, Darwin wins, so...you lose.


.

 

[Cabal]

Um, common sense 101....Only if drawing a circle on a piece of paper would a circle be a 2 dimensional flat object. Did God create the earth on paper? Is it a flat object? Does He sit on a piece of paper?

Uh, no, basic geometry 101 - a "circle" is defined as a 2D object.

Now, you could say that the circle one is seeing is the 2D projection of a 3D object like the earth, but it is not literally clear from the text which is being referred to.

 

[Cabal]

This earth age is about 14,000 years...as written. This earth is billions of years old. The actual age specifically written...no, but certainly written of.

Oh, so it's not literally written then?

As days are a thousand years to God [2Pet.3:8], then we should, I believe, use His reckoning of time during the seven days, seven thousand years, of His creatiing this earth age. Mankind was created on the sixth day...year 6000 of this age (which is the second age). God rested on the seventh and then Adam was formed...year 8000. From that time we go from God's time to man's where a year is a year, a day is a day.

Ditto the above. Where does it literally say that time changed? Or should we treat timescales the Bible describes as thousands of years as several days?

That has nothing to do with the age before our present age...the time of the dinosaurs.

It didn't all happen in a few thousand years, that's for sure.

Evolution is a direct contradiction of what is written. It isn't my opinion but rather what He tells us.

It is quite obviously your opinion, as your arbitrary non-literal intepretations of other verses makes quite clear.

It is not the theory of evolution that contradicts your interpretation of what is written, but the reality that God created contradicts your interpretation of what is written. Your interpretation of what is written is most likely to be incorrect.

Are you able to provide any verse that in any way explains how the Scriptures telling us that man was created should be understood as man evolving?

Not in the literal way you read Genesis 1 - but I don't expect there to be anything that obvious in the Bible, firstly because it was being written for and by people who didn't know as much about science as we did, secondly, if the actual creation account doesn't literally match reality, then it's obviously not the important part of the account. Far better to focus on the mere fact that God created, than get hung on the arbitrary six-days part that has no bearing on reality, which is a likely just a cultural artefact.

Are the genealogies an interpretation? They have nothing to do with evolution or with interpretations.

Sure they do, as they don't literally match up.

Why is this continuously used in relation to this topic?

Just highlighting your inconsistency

 

[1whirlwind]

Uh, no, basic geometry 101 - a "circle" is defined as a 2D object.

Now, you could say that the circle one is seeing is the 2D projection of a 3D object like the earth, but it is not literally clear from the text which is being referred to.

The circle of the earth. That says a great deal I think.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Oh, so it's not literally written then?

It is literally six days, as written. Also, as written, we are told what six days are to the Lord. They are, to Him, literally six days/six thousand years.

Ditto the above. Where does it literally say that time changed? Or should we treat timescales the Bible describes as thousands of years as several days?

It doesn't say. It is what I understand it to say from the Scriptures given.

It didn't all happen in a few thousand years, that's for sure.

True.

It is quite obviously your opinion, as your arbitrary non-literal intepretations of other verses makes quite clear.

Does it matter what I see literally or not? I ask you to see what is written, not what man teaches.

It is not the theory of evolution that contradicts your interpretation of what is written, but the reality that God created contradicts your interpretation of what is written. Your interpretation of what is written is most likely to be incorrect.

Except, I give no interpretation on the creation of man. None is needed. You must accept what is written, offer other Scripture to correct it, or think it a lie. Your choice.

Not in the literal way you read Genesis 1 - but I don't expect there to be anything that obvious in the Bible, firstly because it was being written for and by people who didn't know as much about science as we did, secondly, if the actual creation account doesn't literally match reality, then it's obviously not the important part of the account. Far better to focus on the mere fact that God created, than get hung on the arbitrary six-days part that has no bearing on reality, which is a likely just a cultural artefact.

Okay...then in a figurative way is there a verse telling of evolution? Anything at all to correct Genesis 1? If not, then should you not reconsider?

Sure they do, as they don't literally match up.

Oh, I'm sure there is a reason...I'm just not interested in delving into it now.

Just highlighting your inconsistency

Ah, I see.

 

[crawfish]

The circle of the earth. That says a great deal I think.


.

It says a great deal if you have a satellite picture of earth to look at. It says something quite different if you don't and have no clue about the actual nature of the earth. It also says something quite different if you look at the actual Hebrew word, and the fact that you don't spread a tent over a sphere.

This is why I talk about cultural context being important. You, and all of us, automatically have a picture of the earth in our minds when we read the text that the original audience (and the audience over the first few thousand years afterward) didn't have.

 

[Cabal]

The circle of the earth. That says a great deal I think.

Sure it does, if you already realise the earth is spherical. The point is, "circle" literally refers to both 2D objects and 2D projections of 3D objects. It's not literally especially clear, so it'd be hard to claim either way if you didn't know the nature of the earth already. Retroactively claiming stuff is a piece of cake, but not especially impressive.

Regarding when that verse is written, it's anything from contemporary with to being written later than the Grecian determination that the earth was round, so assuming they were first to do it, it's quite likely that the writers of the Bible at that time did know the world was round.

A much better planetary example is the verses used for ages to justify geocentrism

People got over that (eventually). The same will happen with evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

I know the original didn't show parentheses for it didn't have punctuation but it is important. In the text it is noted and therefore was placed in parentheses when printed.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I agree the word supposed is important, it is just the use of parentheses that isn't. They are simply a stylistic choice of some translators, commas work just as well.

Well, I suppose there is such a word as suppose and I suppose there are many instances of the word being used. However, do any of the verses you quoted say, "as was supposed" and were they placed in parentheses? Was any special attention drawn to them as it was in Luke?
.

As we have seen there were no parentheses in the Greek, not that parentheses would make any difference to the normal meaning of the word which was suppose.

 

[Assyrian]

In Gen2:19, does the original text suggest that animals "have been" made? How do you read from the verse that animals "are being made"?

I think the simple past tense God made the animals is best but what is most important is consistency in your tenses, the Hebrew verbs in the perfect happened before the verbs in the waw consecutive imperfect, while a series of verbs in the waw consecutive indicate a consecutive sequence of actions. God formed the animal

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Then God said... so God formed... and God brought
are a consecutive series of events.

You can also have references to previous events by using the perfect. We see this in verses 7&8.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Then God formed... and breathed... and the man became... And God planted
are another series of consecutive verbs, again using the waw consecutive imperfect, but then the text refers back to God forming the man which had already happened, it is out of sequence reference to a previous event and the Hebrew uses the perfect tense to indicate this

 

[1whirlwind]

The Hebrew uses the same word adm Adam or man and h'adm the man in both chapters, though the idea of two Adams was common in first century Judaism and was picked up and adapted by Paul in 1Cor 15. But the problem with interpreting Genesis 1&2 literally is when the plants animals and birds are created in relation to Adam and Eve, I don't think two creations of mankind and then Adam and Eve help that.

I see the plants, animals, etc. associated with the man Adam as having to do with farming. I also see them figuratively...symbolic of people.

So Jesus' genealogy is not so much given as reconstructed? Even if the whole of Luke's genealogy is not supposed, I don't think it can be taken literally when get to the Adam end the genealogy portrays Adam and the Son of God the same way it portrays Joseph as the son of Eli and Eli as the son of Matthat.

No, I don't see it as reconstructed. There are some generations left out, there is the lineage of Joseph and there are other seeming discrepencies. It is a study in and of itself.

But I think the bigger problem is the supposed, there is nothing in the genealogy to suggest it is only refers to Jesus being the son of Joseph. There is just

one verb in the genealogy "being the son of Joseph the son of Eli..." and the 'supposed' is attached to that verb. Luke does not restart when we go from supposition to real genealogy 'being as was supposed the son of Joseph, who actually was the son of Eli, son of Matthat...' Luke is telling us the whole genealogy is what people supposed.

You discuss the meaning of supposed with Papias which I will try to get to next.

Please keep it in a separate thread...this is too much for my old brain to concentrate on at one time.

I agree with that, though I don't think God's timescale is limited to the creation, if you read psalm 90 it describes our lifetime running from morning to evening. Some of what I said about Genesis 2 shows problems with young earth creationism and a literal six day creation, but they still raise problems for a literal interpretation if you are not YEC.


If there was a mist watering the ground, then the lack of rain would not be a reason for there being no plants. I think you may have cut the passage short.

There were plants, etc. on the third day...just not the plants written of in chapter two.


Genesis 1:11-13 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...

In the first chapter they were simply shown as grass, trees, etc. In the second they are "of the field."

The mist wasn't what was there instead of rain, the mist was God's answer to the lack of rain that stopped the plants from growing. We see two reasons given in verse 5 why there were no plants, the ground was dry and there wasn't a gardener. Then in verses 6&7 we see God's answer, the ground is watered by the mist and God make man.

I understand it differently. "The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth." "There went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." So, to me, there was still no rain when Adam was formed. Who knows, maybe there was no rain until the flood.

There were plants, literal foliage, created on the third day. Then....

2:4-5 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, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

What are they?

No I don't think so. Livestock, cattle in the AV, are referred to along with every beast of the field. Personally I think livestock are a subcategory of beast, which is why they are not mentioned in verse 19 but included in verse 20, In Genesis 1 they are mentioned along with beasts in verses 24&25, but left out in verse 30. But that is just my take on it.

Here you again have "of the field." In chapter one we had "beasts of the earth," but now they are "beasts of the field." Remember....

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

​

You still have the problem beasts and birds are created after man in Genesis 2 but before God created man in Genesis 1.

We have mankind and then Adam. We have literal plants and animals and then we have plants and beasts - people. Chapter 1, chapter 2.

1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

​

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds...
God commanded the earth produce different kinds of living creatures, why can't evolution be the way the earth does this?

Because they were created to "bring forth abundantly after their kind." From the get-go they were male/female and able to produce. Although this earth is ancient...this earth age isn't. His six days of creation was either six literal days or six thousand years. The history of man doesn't allow for anything else.

I also don't see a problem with kinds being subdivided into further kinds. Genesis talks of birds after their kind but in Leviticus 11 you read of the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind. As long as the falcon is still a kind of bird and the species of falcons are still a kind of falcon.

I see no problem either. They are still birds in their various families. It is a species becoming another species (ape to man) that I deny.

​

 

[1whirlwind]

It says a great deal if you have a satellite picture of earth to look at. It says something quite different if you don't and have no clue about the actual nature of the earth. It also says something quite different if you look at the actual Hebrew word, and the fact that you don't spread a tent over a sphere.

This is why I talk about cultural context being important. You, and all of us, automatically have a picture of the earth in our minds when we read the text that the original audience (and the audience over the first few thousand years afterward) didn't have.

The audience isn't the key here. It is the author that is. He is the One that sits on the circle of the earth. He created it so He knows.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
​

The heavens are where He dwells. They are His tent.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Sure it does, if you already realise the earth is spherical. The point is, "circle" literally refers to both 2D objects and 2D projections of 3D objects. It's not literally especially clear, so it'd be hard to claim either way if you didn't know the nature of the earth already. Retroactively claiming stuff is a piece of cake, but not especially impressive.

Regarding when that verse is written, it's anything from contemporary with to being written later than the Grecian determination that the earth was round, so assuming they were first to do it, it's quite likely that the writers of the Bible at that time did know the world was round.

A much better planetary example is the verses used for ages to justify geocentrism

People got over that (eventually). The same will happen with evolution.

I see the curvature of the earth. I see a circular moon and a circular sun. But, nevertheless it wasn't man that inspired the verse...it was God. He knows of the circle of the earth.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I agree the word supposed is important, it is just the use of parentheses that isn't. They are simply a stylistic choice of some translators, commas work just as well.

As we have seen there were no parentheses in the Greek, not that parentheses would make any difference to the normal meaning of the word which was suppose.

It's been a long day so I must close now but did want to reply to you.

My understanding of the parentheses is that it denotes a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or even chapter...that was specially noted in the text and the translators enclosed it parenthetically to keep that very special attention drawn to it. So, a comma wouldn't do the trick.


.

 

[crawfish]

The audience isn't the key here. It is the author that is. He is the One that sits on the circle of the earth. He created it so He knows.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
​

The heavens are where He dwells. They are His tent.


.

If God dictated the words (rather than simply inspiring the author), then why isn't He clearer here? Why doesn't he use the Hebrew word for sphere? Why does He imply that it's spread out like a tent when he knows that the contemporary audience to whom tents were all too familiar and who would envision this in their mind as a tent with a flat bottom (the earth)? As is, God would be allowing at least 1,000 years of humanity to be reading this wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

I think the simple past tense God made the animals is best but what is most important is consistency in your tenses, the Hebrew verbs in the perfect happened before the verbs in the waw consecutive imperfect, while a series of verbs in the waw consecutive indicate a consecutive sequence of actions. God formed the animal

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Then God said... so God formed... and God brought
are a consecutive series of events.

You can also have references to previous events by using the perfect. We see this in verses 7&8.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Then God formed... and breathed... and the man became... And God planted
are another series of consecutive verbs, again using the waw consecutive imperfect, but then the text refers back to God forming the man which had already happened, it is out of sequence reference to a previous event and the Hebrew uses the perfect tense to indicate this

Thanks. I only get a rough idea on what you said.

Now, if 2:19 only suggests that God (has) made animals, then why do you suggest the creation is out of sequence right there? It may well be that God creates animal first, then creates man.

It would mean: "God brings Adam animals He made". Is this right?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

You wrote....



I replied that it was neither written by them or only to them.





You can write about all the organisms you wish. I am speaking about evolution of man from apes. It didn't happen. It is a lie. It directly contradicts His Word on this subject.


.

That's nice. Yet no one claimed that the bible was written only for goat herders so thank you red herring. Moving on.

Seeing as BIOLOGISTS,etc also say that man did not evolve from apes. Apparently you all are on the same side on that issue. Now when you actually learn what biologists and other scientists with knowledge of the facts of evolution. Get back to me.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If God dictated the words (rather than simply inspiring the author), then why isn't He clearer here? Why doesn't he use the Hebrew word for sphere? Why does He imply that it's spread out like a tent when he knows that the contemporary audience to whom tents were all too familiar and who would envision this in their mind as a tent with a flat bottom (the earth)? As is, God would be allowing at least 1,000 years of humanity to be reading this wrong.

Things like this always strike me as the difference between Bible-ism and Christianity. Biblical literalists often like to practice bible-ism which tends to lead to these YEC arguments. But if people want to believe in a grand global conspiracy by tons of scientists and due to the recorded ages of the earth and the universe and things such as ancient fossils. Apparently God is on the conspiracy to throw the wool over their eyes as well.

 

[Jase]

I see the curvature of the earth. I see a circular moon and a circular sun. But, nevertheless it wasn't man that inspired the verse...it was God. He knows of the circle of the earth.


.

What part of the Earth is not a circle do you not get?

The circle of the Earth with the solid dome above it as described in Genesis looks like this:

 

[SonOfTheWest]

What part of the Earth is not a circle do you not get?

The circle of the Earth with the solid dome above it as described in Genesis looks like this:

I would hope he understood that a circle is not a sphere.

 

[Polycarp1]

Are you indeed? Then why do you believe anything that is written? Apparently He lies to us and we need man to teach the proper way. Oh, I forgot....

Mark 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

​

Yep. That would be people who claim that God either lied in His Book or in His Creation, because they insist that His Book must be literal historical narrative, when the ancients knew very well the value of story ("mayth" in the technical sense, not the "fairy story" common-use sense) in getting across truths better than dry factual narrrative. God does not lie -- His Creation and His Book testify to His truthfulness. It's those who would subvert it to a use He never intended who are the ones Jesus warns of.

Or, as for Scripture....you could consider.....

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
​

I wonder if Timothy heard about that on his grandmother's knee?


.

I'm certain he did. If you're saying the only way God could create man in His image is by pulling off a magic trick, not by creating a world that would result in man in His image, then I think you're the one who has a problem with believing in God's omnipotence.