Evolution

[SonOfTheWest]

Since the Bible does not support the concept of an earth-centered universe, the authors of the Bible could not have supported this notion.

Unfortunately the historical RCC didn't get the memo.

 

[Assyrian]

No need to for it isn't me that made that decision. To accept evolution the believer must first believe the creation account is false. Meaning...God lied. So, either God lied or evolution is a lie. God tells us lying about His Word is a really, really, bad thing...evil.

So, my fellow Christians. Choices must be made and...they are ours to make. Decide wisely.

I would have though the wise choice was to get to know God better.
This is the same God who said he carried the Israelites out of Egypt on eagle's wings.
Was that true? Is it a lie? Or is there a third possibility?
Jesus told us he was a grapevine.
Is that true? Was he lying, or hallucinating? Or is there another option?

We learn about the Father through Jesus and Jesus loved to speak in parables and metaphors.

 

[1whirlwind]

Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Took me all of five seconds to find.



Making smartmouth remarks about mystical geocentrism instead of doing a five-second google search.

Cabal....I did as you suggested and pulled up Mirriam-Webster online. This is what came up.....

geocentrism

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

.

 

[Cabal]

Cabal....I did as you suggested and pulled up Mirriam-Webster online. This is what came up.....

Googled: "merriam-webster geocentrism"

First result: Geocentric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

(different conjugation, but same thing)

Can we stop being literalistic with the dictionary now as well as the Bible and address the point?

 

[1whirlwind]

Huh? This is certainly a different interpretation of the Bible. I think most (all?) Biblical scholars would agree that God created Adam, along with other creatures living on the land, on the sixth day of creation. Creation was finished, done by the end of the 6th day- which is why God then rested on the 7th day.

Then...most biblical scholars haven't read the account properly.

Genesis 2:3,5-8 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. (5-8) 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. But 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, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom He had formed.
​

Mankind, all races from the sixth day were created...not formed as was Adam, the man Adam, the specific individual Adam.

Certainly Luke 3:38 makes it clear that Adam was the first human being. So that would make it impossible that, as you say, Adam was formed on the eighth day, and all other races, mankind, on the sixth.

Does [Luke 3:38] tells us Adam was the first human being or does it give us the beginning of the line to Christ which began with Adam. He was the first man in that lineage.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
​

But you're really evading the question- there could only have been one first created human being- who was Adam- and he had to be either a white person, a black person, chinese, etc. This means that all other races were a product of evolution- the original genes in Adam were modified (evolved) to produce the multitude of races that we see today.

I'm not evading. Why do you believe there "could only have been one first created human?" And then believe the impossible task of all races coming from that one individual.

All races, male and female, were created on the sixth day. The line from which the Saviour would come was formed after the seventh day of rest.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Googled: "merriam-webster geocentrism"

First result: Geocentric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

(different conjugation, but same thing)

Can we stop being literalistic with the dictionary now as well as the Bible and address the point?

Thank you....I saw geocentric and thought it should still provide a definition for geocentrism. I find that odd actually.

As for the point? It has been addressed, has it not?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

I would have though the wise choice was to get to know God better.

That is always the wisest of all things.

This is the same God who said he carried the Israelites out of Egypt on eagle's wings.
Was that true? Is it a lie? Or is there a third possibility?
Jesus told us he was a grapevine.
Is that true? Was he lying, or hallucinating? Or is there another option?

We learn about the Father through Jesus and Jesus loved to speak in parables and metaphors.

Indeed and as He opens our eyes and ears the language becomes clearer and clearer. However, within His parables and metaphors you will not find where He lied. Nor will you find where He asked us to listen to man over His Word, including what He spoke in parables and metaphors. Instead He asks us to understand them and warns against the teaching of man.

I would also mention that we are to understand more fully as He speaks to us directly...we are to know the mysteries.

Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
​

.


.

 

[Cabal]

Thank you....I saw geocentric and thought it should still provide a definition for geocentrism. I find that odd actually.

Not really. "Geocentric" = adjective. "Geocentrism" = noun. It's quite simple.

As for the point? It has been addressed, has it not?

It has been brought up several times, but not addressed. What makes geocentrists any different from modern day YECs? They are focusing on their "literal" interpretation of very small segments of the Bible, and are totally at odds with what science shows to be correct.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

I am certainly not going to argue against a figurative interpretation of Genesis The problem is with the literal interpretation. If Genesis 2 is symbolic there is no contradiction with Genesis 1. The problem is if Genesis 2 is literal, or both symbolic and literal, because it is the literal interpretation that contradicts the order of creation in the first creation account. When did God create all the birds of the air? Was it after he created man when he saw Adam was alone as Genesis 2 tells us, or did God create the birds of the air on the fifth day, before God created beasts and man, as we are told in Genesis 1? Like I said it is fine if the real meaning is figurative, not if it is meant literally or both literally and figuratively.

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.

You took the genealogy in Matthew and tacked on half the genealogy in Luke, that sounds reconstructed to me

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

Fair enough, and if you want to start another thread on the topic feel free.

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.

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

Be careful not to read too much into a simple difference in style and vocabulary between Gen 1 & 2.
Genesis 1 uses 'beasts of the earth' 'fish of the sea' and 'birds of the air'.

Genesis 2&3 likes to uses the description 'of the field', we have 'herb of the field', 'plant of the field', 'beast of the field', the snake is describe as a 'beast of the field' and part of Adam's curse is to eat the 'herb of the field'. Genesis 2 however describes birds as 'birds of the air' like Genesis 1.

The list of what God creates is incomplete in both accounts, Genesis 1 for example never mentions mushrooms or seaweed, there is no mention of flightless birds either, ostriches and penguins. That does not mean it is say God did not create them. Instead each act of creation mentions three representative type of organism:
grass, herbs and trees
sun, moon and stars
sea monsters, swarming fish and birds
beasts of the earth, cattle and creepy crawlies
(what happened to earthworms?)
And while they are not exhaustive lists, they stand for God creating everything, lock, stock and barrel, as it were.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

The second creation account is just as universal in its declaration of God as creator: every beast of the field... every bird of the air... every living creature... all livestock.
It is just that all these living creatures are created in a different order to Genesis 1.

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.

Glad you don't insist on the last part, a lot of creationists do, along with there being no rainbows until after the flood either. but as you realise, the text does not actually say that.

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?

Do the herbs have seeds? Then they are the same plants we read about in Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Were the fruit trees in Genesis 1 pretty?
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

So when did God make the birds of the air, on day five before he created man and beast or did he create 'every bird of the air' after he created man

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.​

Ah yes my favourite pro evolution verse, Solomon realising we are animals too. Interestingly, Solomon had pet apes so he was in a good position to make the comparison.

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.
​

Paul is talking about Adam as part of the natural creation, the spiritual which comes after is our new creation in Christ.

Because they were created to "bring forth abundantly after their kind." From the get-go they were male/female and able to produce.

You are mistaking after their kind as meaning able to reproduce more of their kind, it doesn't, it simply means different kinds of animals. And that is what evolution produced.

Lev 11:13 These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
15 every raven in its kind.
This is not talking about how the birds reproduced, but the different varieties of bird you could and couldn't eat.

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.

Written history only tells us how long man has been able to write, but man has been around a lot longer than that.

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.

We never ceased to be apes, we have never ceased to be primates and mammals. Evolution is never about organisms leaving their families, but the families becoming more complex, the children and grandchildren having families of their own, but they never cease to be part of the earlier family.

 

[Assyrian]

That is always the wisest of all things.

Indeed and as He opens our eyes and ears the language becomes clearer and clearer. However, within His parables and metaphors you will not find where He lied.

That's the thing. No one is suggesting he lied. If the creation accounts are metaphor or poetry then they are not lies.

Nor will you find where He asked us to listen to man over His Word, including what He spoke in parables and metaphors. Instead He asks us to understand them and warns against the teaching of man.

Usually he warned against the scripture interpretations of men As for human wisdom and understanding he did not seem to have a problem with that.
Matt 16:2 He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.'
3 And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.

Luke 12:54 He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, 'A shower is coming.' And so it happens.
55 And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat,' and it happens.
56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

I would also mention that we are to understand more fully as He speaks to us directly...we are to know the mysteries.

Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
​

.

In other words as his disciples we are supposed to be able to understand the mysteries hidden in metaphor and parable. Or at least, like his disciples, learn to understand as we spend time with our Lord.

 

[1whirlwind]

Not really. "Geocentric" = adjective. "Geocentrism" = noun. It's quite simple.

Okay but I see adjectives defined in the dictionary....why not geocentrism? Not a big deal, I just wondered.

It has been brought up several times, but not addressed. What makes geocentrists any different from modern day YECs? They are focusing on their "literal" interpretation of very small segments of the Bible, and are totally at odds with what science shows to be correct.

The two, Bible and science, shouldn't conflict. Science can and does more fully explain God's world but the Bible should keep us on the right path and not prone to accepting what science wrongly decides.


.

 

[Cabal]

The two, Bible and science, shouldn't conflict. Science can and does more fully explain God's world but the Bible should keep us on the right path and not prone to accepting what science wrongly decides.

They shouldn't conflict - but in the case of those whose "literal" interpretations led them to geocentrism, if they chose the Bible over science, they would have been wrong, as heliocentrism showed that the sun was the centre of the solar system; and even then reading it "literally" would be incorrect as Hubble showed that the sun is not the centre of the universe (if you want to go with the full definition of helio/geocentrism).

In this case, what science "wrongly" decided according to the geocentrists and heliocentrists turned out to be correct. So why should this be any different with evolution and the "literal" readings of Genesis 1?

 

[Cabal]

I provided all definitions of the word "circle." I chose the one that properly fit the Biblical verse.

And you could not have done so purely from a literal reading of the text.

What evidence? These "arguments" about a circle being round are truly laughable to me. But, if you want to believe that they thought the earth was flat and that God too thought the earth was flat then....okay. I have had enough discussion on this particular topic. Perhaps if it is important enough to have taken several pages then it deserves it's very own thread. After all, it has nothing to do with evolution.

No, I didn't say that God also thought the world was flat. This is about the fifth time now you've strawmanned my argument.

And it is perfectly relevant because it highlights your inconsistency of claiming that your personal "literal" reading is "the right one" because it is no better a criterion than the one used by those who "literally" claimed the earth is flat or the earth is immovable and at the centre of the universe, so it is completely valueless for distinguishing Biblical truth and reconciling it with the nature of the universe. Certainly it does not justify levelling the kind of accusations you have done at the beliefs of fellow-Christians.

No, I am not in denial. I replied that it is our Father that spoke with Isaiah and it is He that tells us about the "circle of the earth."

You are presuming that he did, without any justification.

No need to for it isn't me that made that decision. To accept evolution the believer must first believe the creation account is false.

WRONG. You only need believe the literal interpretation composed by fallible humans is inadequate.

Meaning...God lied. So, either God lied or evolution is a lie. God tells us lying about His Word is a really, really, bad thing...evil.

False dichotomies, which you have just instituted here, are also lies. Perhaps that is where the evil is.

(not pleasant to be indirectly accused of such a thing, is it?)

So, my fellow Christians. Choices must be made and...they are ours to make. Decide wisely.

Although I wouldn't recommend taking any advice on what is a wise decision from someone espousing such an inconsistent view of the Bible.

Yes indeed it is. Much, much older than that. As for life, it depends upon which life we are speaking of. That of dinosaurs or man.

All forms of life were not formed in a day.

That was a good one.

I honestly didn't mean it as a snark at the company you choose, merely to point out that the fact that people you know hold equally untenable "literal" views of that verse doesn't really mean much if they are equally inept with science.

To see that the circle of the earth means the earth is round doesn't take a scientist to explain. No one is making a scientific claim on it.

It is a scientific claim, as the shape of the Earth is determined scientifically, and is tied in with the laws of nature. At the very least, it is something that science is capable of addressing, and with more accuracy than someone's personal opinion of the Bible, so don't go complaining when people introduce it

You believe that the circle of the earth needs interpretation?

When couched in such a vague term as "circle", absolutely.

Not having scientific knowledge I would agree with. Biblical knowledge I have...still learning but I have some. At least enough to know a circle is round.

If that's the extent of your understanding - keep learning.

I guess because He thought we were smart enough to understand...the earth is circular and the earth is round.

Didn't you just post a verse saying how much easier understanding is if you're dumber or whatever?

Shoddy, illogical foundation. Genesis 1 and 2...shoddy and illogical?

Your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 =/= Genesis 1 and 2.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 has a shoddy and illogical foundation.

Simples

Which is?

People obsess over the creation mechanism when that is not the point of Genesis 1. Instead they could be focusing on God's motivation, and not feeling threatened by the facts of God's nature also.

I know...that is what worries me.

Worry about providing better support for your stance then.

If you see it as flawed and I see yours as a lie then...what is the point? There is one truth on this...only one.

And merely insisting that you have the truth over and over again is not going to convince anyone.

 

[gluadys]

From all of this questioning about a flat earth I would assume your concept of evolution somehow hangs in the balance???

Not at all.

It is one's understanding of and respect for scripture that hangs in the balance. I can respect a God who accommodates his revelation to the non-scientific worldview of his chosen prophets.

I have no such respect for people who choose not to understand scripture in its original context and therefore 1) reject part of the reality we have come to know through science by insisting on a literal reading of what cannot be literally true and 2) equally insist that so much of the scientific view of reality they agree with must be found in scripture by giving it ad hoc non-literal interpretations.

There is no consistency in or respect for either God or the biblical authors in forcing the text to agree with your own views on science.

If you want to believe God was STUPID and considered His CREATION as being flat when He created it then....okay.

That is a misrepresentation of what people are trying to tell you and it has been pointed out to you enough times that continuing to assert it amounts to speaking falsely.

 

[gluadys]

He tells us what is meant by six days. It is literally true but one must understand what the "day" is.


.

IOW it's literally true, ... but then again, it's not.

How typical of "literal interpretations"!!

 

[Assyrian]

Simples

Hi Aleksandr

 

[Cabal]

Hi Aleksandr

I forgot the little clicky thing he does afterwards

 

[Assyrian]

You been to compare the muskrat dot com?

 

[1whirlwind]

I am certainly not going to argue against a figurative interpretation of Genesis The problem is with the literal interpretation. If Genesis 2 is symbolic there is no contradiction with Genesis 1. The problem is if Genesis 2 is literal, or both symbolic and literal, because it is the literal interpretation that contradicts the order of creation in the first creation account. When did God create all the birds of the air? Was it after he created man when he saw Adam was alone as Genesis 2 tells us, or did God create the birds of the air on the fifth day, before God created beasts and man, as we are told in Genesis 1? Like I said it is fine if the real meaning is figurative, not if it is meant literally or both literally and figuratively.

Genesis can and should be seen both ways. The figurative will not conflict with the literal.

There are different types of birds, plants, beasts, trees, etc. in the two chapters. For instance....there are literal trees and then there are "trees of the field" and "trees in the garden of God"....

Isaiah 55:12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.


Ezekiel 31:3-7 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

(where have I seen that name before...Assyrian? Here, the Assyrian cedar tree, isn't the good guy.)
​

31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
​

So, there are trees and then...there are trees. Same with beasts, fowl, plants, etc.

You took the genealogy in Matthew and tacked on half the genealogy in Luke, that sounds reconstructed to me

But, if we are shown the genealogy of Adam to Abraham in one...would it not be the same in the other that begins with that of Abraham? That isn't reconstructing to me. Rather it is 2 + 2.

Fair enough, and if you want to start another thread on the topic feel free.

No...I have so much on my plate now Assyrian. I presently have three different threads in various stages of completion...one of which I started this morning because of the discussion we are now having on the two chapters of Genesis. For now, knowing the line is from Adam to Christ is the important factor.

Be careful not to read too much into a simple difference in style and vocabulary between Gen 1 & 2.
Genesis 1 uses 'beasts of the earth' 'fish of the sea' and 'birds of the air'.

Genesis 2&3 likes to uses the description 'of the field', we have 'herb of the field', 'plant of the field', 'beast of the field', the snake is describe as a 'beast of the field' and part of Adam's curse is to eat the 'herb of the field'. Genesis 2 however describes birds as 'birds of the air' like Genesis 1.

The serpent being a beast of the field is a strong clue as to what beasts are, or...who they follow.

The list of what God creates is incomplete in both accounts, Genesis 1 for example never mentions mushrooms or seaweed, there is no mention of flightless birds either, ostriches and penguins. That does not mean it is say God did not create them. Instead each act of creation mentions three representative type of organism:

grass, herbs and trees
sun, moon and stars
sea monsters, swarming fish and birds
beasts of the earth, cattle and creepy crawlies
(what happened to earthworms?)
And while they are not exhaustive lists, they stand for God creating everything, lock, stock and barrel, as it were.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Yes, God rested from "all His work which He created and made," [Gen.2:3] but...the man Adam wasn't yet "formed."

Genesis 2:1,4-5 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.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: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
​

Everything was created including plants and herbs "of the field"...including "the host" of heaven and earth BEFORE it/they got here, "before it was in the earth," "before it grew." All souls are with Him and were created before our physical birth, before we are "in the earth, before it grew." Those in heaven and earth were created but not yet placed in flesh bodies.

The second creation account is just as universal in its declaration of God as creator: every beast of the field... every bird of the air... every living creature... all livestock.
It is just that all these living creatures are created in a different order to Genesis 1.

Why are they shown in a different order? A mistake or a lesson?

Glad you don't insist on the last part, a lot of creationists do, along with there being no rainbows until after the flood either. but as you realise, the text does not actually say that.

Speaking of rainbows....no, that's too much to throw into the mix. Another topic for another day.

Do the herbs have seeds? Then they are the same plants we read about in Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Does mankind have seed?

Were the fruit trees in Genesis 1 pretty?
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

I think my apple tree is a beauty. As for the trees He made to "spring up" in the second chapter they too are beautiful in His sight.

So when did God make the birds of the air, on day five before he created man and beast or did he create 'every bird of the air' after he created man

The host of heaven and earth (all souls) were created before this age began. We are the "generations of the heavens and of the earth."

Genesis 2:4 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,
​

When was that day? When were we, the host, created? Remember, we were created before we were in the earth. The answer is...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
​

He created us, our souls, our spirits, before this age began.

Ah yes my favourite pro evolution verse, Solomon realising we are animals too. Interestingly, Solomon had pet apes so he was in a good position to make the comparison.

Good try. However, in Genesis we're told about both...beast and man, not about one becoming another.

Paul is talking about Adam as part of the natural creation, the spiritual which comes after is our new creation in Christ.

True, but it is more. Compare the physical/literal to being "the letter."

11 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

​

You are mistaking after their kind as meaning able to reproduce more of their kind, it doesn't, it simply means different kinds of animals. And that is what evolution produced.

Lev 11:13 These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
15 every raven in its kind.
This is not talking about how the birds reproduced, but the different varieties of bird you could and couldn't eat.

I agree that Leviticus is naming the "kinds" of things we should avoid consuming. I do not agree that Genesis is speaking of the same thing....

Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
​

Each of His creations were created to "bring forth" offspring of "their kind." And, they do. Humans have humans, birds have birds, fish have fish.

Written history only tells us how long man has been able to write, but man has been around a lot longer than that.

I agree. A great deal of history happened before Moses was given the Torah. Although the Babylonians had a written language first doesn't mean they were around first...they just wrote it first.

We never ceased to be apes, we have never ceased to be primates and mammals. Evolution is never about organisms leaving their families, but the families becoming more complex, the children and grandchildren having families of their own, but they never cease to be part of the earlier family.

Mammals yes...apes/primates...no.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

That's the thing. No one is suggesting he lied. If the creation accounts are metaphor or poetry then they are not lies.

I can't see any Christian ever saying..."God lied." But, if you accept something as truth when it conflicts with what is written then...are you not saying, "God lied." Putting earrings and lipstick on evolution by saying...that is how God created, may make it prettier and easier to accept but it's still untrue. It cannot be both.

Usually he warned against the scripture interpretations of men As for human wisdom and understanding he did not seem to have a problem with that.
Matt 16:2 He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.'
3 And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.

Luke 12:54 He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, 'A shower is coming.' And so it happens.
55 And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat,' and it happens.
56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

In other words as his disciples we are supposed to be able to understand the mysteries hidden in metaphor and parable. Or at least, like his disciples, learn to understand as we spend time with our Lord.

He does warn against man's teaching on many levels, not just false prophets misleading the flock but...those of the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


.

​