I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

[KWCrazy]

Credentials matter if one is disagreeing with the experts.

Experts:
Ex = has been
Spurt = A drip under pressure.
You wouldn't want an expert on the law in Uruguay to represent you in an American courtroom, why take the work of someone who studies rocks over the one who Created the rocks?

 

[KWCrazy]

You know that Hitler was a creationist believing that the species were made fully formed, and even says so right in his famous book "Mein Kampf", right?

The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes.

Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. But a league table of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. source

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Experts:
Ex = has been
Spurt = A drip under pressure.
You wouldn't want an expert on the law in Uruguay to represent you in an American courtroom, why take the work of someone who studies rocks over the one who Created the rocks?

Accepting the direct word of God as left behind in the stars, the rocks and the Genomes is not rejecting their Creator.

 

[KWCrazy]

Accepting the direct word of God as left behind in the stars, the rocks and the Genomes is not rejecting their Creator.

The word of God was written in the Scriptures; you know; that book with "every word that comes from the mouth of God" that Jesus suggested you study. Looking at the universe and saying "There's no way God created this, it must have created itself" is absolutely rejecting the Scriptures. You also reject that God made Adam in His image; you reject the teaching that sin and death came into the world through one man, you disavow the generations from Adam to Jesus that authenticate who Christ was, you call the Great Flood which Christ confirmed a myth and you tell people that God never destroyed all life on the planet. You deny the word of God because your science teacher said, "No, it had to happen another way."

Evolution contradicts foundational doctrine. If it were true the Scriptures would not have told us otherwise. If it were true TE's would be able to point to passages in the Scripture which support it. There are none because it is false doctrine.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The word of God was written in the Scriptures; you know; that book with "every word that comes from the mouth of God" that Jesus suggested you study. Looking at the universe and saying "There's no way God created this, it must have created itself" is absolutely rejecting the Scriptures. You also reject . . . .

I am a Christian, and I do not reject scriptures nor do I reject God creating all things, and I would thank you to stop lying about what I say. I merely say God used evolution as part of His creative process. The next time you lie about what I say I will report you.

that God made Adam in His image; you reject the teaching that sin and death came into the world through one man, you disavow the generations from Adam to Jesus that authenticate who Christ was, you call the Great Flood which Christ confirmed a myth and you tell people that God never destroyed all life on the planet. You deny the word of God because your science teacher said, "No, it had to happen another way."

Evolution contradicts foundational doctrine. If it were true the Scriptures would not have told us otherwise. If it were true TE's would be able to point to passages in the Scripture which support it. There are none because it is false doctrine.

Adam was the first ensouled homo sapiens. THe flood of Noah was the world known to Noah. Its simple enough to show continuous unflooded places in Antarctica and Greenland, the flood is missing in ice cores showing countable layers of hundreds of thousands of years. Reality is what proves you wrong in your Bible interpretations, not me.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am a Christian, and I do not reject scriptures

That's good to know. But for the record, do you accept or reject:
The Creation narrative; the first two chapters of Genesis
The week of seven days; God Himself carved the Fourth Commandment establishing the Sabbath as a day of rest after a six day work week, because the universe was created in six days.
The origin of sin and death
The Global Flood
The Bible as the word of God.

My guess is that you won't answer this question because to believe in Evolution requires the rejection of all of these things. This is a rejection of the Scriptures, unless you can somehow demonstrate that these foundational doctrine do not actually exist.
The fact is anyone can point out passages which directly contradict evolution and you can't point to a single passage that does. Moreover, I bet you won't even show us the criteria you use in determining what to accept and what to reject. There are 333 miracles in the Bible. Not a single one of them are scientifically possible, which is why they are miracles.
If this is not your position then please clarify, but I suspect you won't. In my experience, No TE has ever been able to use the Bible to justify their claims.

I would thank you to stop lying about what I say.

Please show me which of the above statements you disagree with. By the way, I use the collective "you" meaning Theistic evolutionists. My posts are never directed at any individual. My position is clear. I do not believe it possible to justify evolution using the Scriptures. One must reject the Scriptures to believe in evolution. Nobody has ever demonstrated any evidence to the contrary.

I merely say God used evolution as part of His creative process.

Not a single passage in the Bible agrees with you and foundational doctrine is 100% opposed to evolution. How do you rationalize believing in two mutually exclusive doctrines?
The next time you accuse me of lying I will report you.

Adam was the first ensouled homo sapiens.

Jesus said from the beginning God created them male and female. Should I believe you or Jesus?

THe flood of Noah was the world known to Noah.

Not possible. The region is relatively low lying with ready runoff to the sea. Any flood of Biblical proportion would reach sea level very quickly, meaning the waters couldn't rise without taking the seas with them.
Jesus said the flood happened and called Noah by name. Should I believe Him or you?

Reality is what proves you wrong in your Bible interpretations, not me.

Who determines reality? If you think that natural law and not God is Lord of the universe, then you have a distorted view of reality. I know that God can suspend time for a day, making the sun stand still in the sky. He can do that because He is God. Science claims such a thing to be impossible. Who do you believe???

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's good to know. But for the record, do you accept or reject:
The Creation narrative; the first two chapters of Genesis

Of course I accept them. But the fact that they are contradictory in places is a clue they are not meant to be literal.

The week of seven days; God Himself carved the Fourth Commandment establishing the Sabbath as a day of rest after a six day work week, because the universe was created in six days.

The "week" of creation is six "yoms", not days, and the word can mean extended periods of time, and the clues left us in creation itself point to that being the correct interpretation.

The origin of sin and death

I have no problem with Adam and Eve's disobedience introducing sin to the human race and death to Adam and Eve and all their progeny.

The Global Flood

I have no problem with the flood as taking place over the whole world as known to Noah

The Bible as the word of God.

I accept the Bible as the Word of God.

Please show me which of the above statements you disagree with. By the way, I use the collective "you" meaning Theistic evolutionists. My posts are never directed at any individual.

If you address a post back to me and say "you" I will take it as applying to me. You can assert I am mistaken, but you cannot tell me what I assert.

My position is clear. I do not believe it possible to justify evolution using the Scriptures. One must reject the Scriptures to believe in evolution. Nobody has ever demonstrated any evidence to the contrary.

That's exactly what Martin Luther said about the heretical teachings of Copernicus, who would lead people to believe the sun only appears to go around the earth, the earth really rotates as the cause of night and day.

Science, including the science of evolution, shows us what reality is, and we are therefore guided by reality in how to interpret the Bible. The earth is not flat. The sky is not a solid dome over our heads. The sun doesn't move around the earth to cause day and night. The earth is 4 + billion years of age. All life is of common descent according to the flesh. These are facts and our choice is to interpret scripture to be consistent with these facts or to tell folks how we believe things that aren't true, and many of them will know we are doing that. I cannot bring myself to tell folks lies about reality.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Allegory:
The Creation narrative; the first two chapters of Genesis
The week of seven days; God Himself carved the Fourth Commandment establishing the Sabbath as a day of rest after a six day work week, because the universe was created in six days.
The origin of sin and death
The Global Flood

Truth:
The Bible as the word of God.

Allegory: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
Definition of ALLEGORY

It is possible to read Genesis as allegory and learn truth - the truth that God created the universe, the truth that through disobedience humans are sinful, the truth the sin is punished by God.

However, we (me and my evolutionist brethren) are just as much Christians as you (you and your creationist brethren) since we all believe in the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. We are all part of the same Body of Christ, whether you like it or not.

 

[KWCrazy]

Of course I accept them. But the fact that they are contradictory in places is a clue they are not meant to be literal.

The only way to fake a contradiction is to read Genesis 2 out of context. It is NOT a narrative of the creation of the earth, but the specific creation of man on day 6. It even starts out by saying "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."

So the second chapter begins by AFFIRMING the six day creation and then goes into detail of man's creation and the creation of woman. It is not possible for you to refute this using Scripture, and unless your argument includes Scriptural evidence it will be rejected. The word of God trukps the theories of science, period.

The "week" of creation is six "yoms", not days,

Yom or yowm means day.

and the word can mean extended periods of time,

When used as a numbered day or in conjunction with an evening and morning yom means a single solar day 100% of the time without exception. Just as "in the days of..." can mean a long period, if I say the third day of June it means a single day.

Yours is the same argument Satan used on Eve. God said that "in the day they ate the fruit they would surely die." That meant death would be assured at that moment. Satan told her she wouldn't die that day. Also true, but deceptive.

I have no problem with Adam and Eve's disobedience introducing sin to the human race and death to Adam and Eve and all their progeny.

There was no death in the world prior to the fall. The world itself became cursed. No death = no evolution. Genesis 1 and 2 both confirm a six day creation as does Exodus 20:11 and many other verses. This is what the Scriptures tell us.

I have no problem with the flood as taking place over the whole world as known to Noah

You just have trouble with topographical maps? Please show us where on this planet the flood could have happened. Keep in mind that man originated in what is now Iraq. You never discussed the problem with low elevation. Tell me; can you get a bathtub overfilled by seven feet without any spilling over the sides? That's what you're saying happened; that water stacked itself high enough to cover the mountains in on area but it didn't affect the rest of the world. Gravity precludes this. Water will find the lowest level.

I accept the Bible as the Word of God.

So when God wrote on a stone tablet “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it,” was He telling us the truth?

That's exactly what Martin Luther said about the heretical teachings of Copernicus, who would lead people to believe the sun only appears to go around the earth, the earth really rotates as the cause of night and day.

And yet we still use the words sunrise and sunset. Christ said, "as far as the east is from the west." He knew that north and south touched at the poles but you can never end up going west if you start by flying east. That required a knowledge of the earth nobody else had.

Science, including the science of evolution, shows us what reality is,

Science tells me that after being dead and decaying for three days in the hot sun a dead man isn't going to come back to life and walk out of a cave because you call him. How does science define "reality" when all God's miracles defy the laws of science? GOD defines reality. The reality is that natural law bends to God's law, and the physical world is only a temporary dwelling place for man's eternal soul.

and we are therefore guided by reality in how to interpret the Bible.

So you deny all 333 miracles? Science tells us ax heads don't float and men can't walk on water. Remove the things that violate the laws of science from the Bible and you have a pamplet.

The earth is not flat. The sky is not a solid dome over our heads. The sun doesn't move around the earth to cause day and night.

The Bible doesn't say these things. If you read and understood it you would know better. These are the things atheists post, not Christians. You may well be sincere in your faith, but by the things you write and the way you subjugate the word of God to the theories of man, how would we know the difference between your posts and those of an atheist? You write the same things. You repeat their false claims. Stand up for the Lord and His word.

The earth is 4 + billion years of age. All life is of common descent according to the flesh.

According to the Scriptures, these claims are 100% false. You say that you don't reject the Scriptures and then you post statements in 100% opposition to the Scriptures. How do you justify that? The hand of God wrote on stone tablets that the heavens and earth were created in six days. Christ said God made Adam and Eve from the beginning. Did they both lie? Either they lied, the Bible is false or the earth was created in six days. There IS NO other position. Attacking the word of God as false or erroneous does not serve the Lord. Undermining the faith of other Christians by posting that the Bible is wrong does not serve the Lord.

If you can't provide scriptural evidence to support your claims then please do not respond.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The only way to fake a contradiction is to read Genesis 2 out of context. It is NOT a narrative of the creation of the earth, but the specific creation of man on day 6. It even starts out by saying "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."

So the second chapter begins by AFFIRMING the six day creation and then goes into detail of man's creation and the creation of woman.

You don't even know that the chapter divisions are far later than the writings, and are somewhat arbitrary? The first narrative ends at chapter 2 verse 3. Then the second narrative is begun . . . at chapter 2 verse 4. The actual contradiction most commonly mentioned is the order of creation between man and animals. In chapter one verses 25 through 27, the animals are created first and then Adam. In chapter two, verses 18 through 19, man is created first, then the animals. Clearly, a contradiction in the order of creation between man and animals.

When used as a numbered day or in conjunction with an evening and morning yom means a single solar day 100% of the time without exception. Just as "in the days of..." can mean a long period, if I say the third day of June it means a single day.

There was no death in the world prior to the fall. The world itself became cursed. No death = no evolution. Genesis 1 and 2 both confirm a six day creation as does Exodus 20:11 and many other verses. This is what the Scriptures tell us.

All the dinosaurs died before there ever was a man. That's a fact.

You just have trouble with topographical maps? Please show us where on this planet the flood could have happened. Keep in mind that man originated in what is now Iraq. You never discussed the problem with low elevation. Tell me; can you get a bathtub overfilled by seven feet without any spilling over the sides? That's what you're saying happened; that water stacked itself high enough to cover the mountains in on area but it didn't affect the rest of the world. Gravity precludes this. Water will find the lowest level.

The flood of Noah most likely happened at the end of the last ice age, and you are ignoring the topography created by the glaciers.

So when God wrote on a stone tablet “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it,” was He telling us the truth?

Only if you insist yom has to mean day and can't mean other time frames, which you do insist on, but I don't accept that.

And yet we still use the words sunrise and sunset. Christ said, "as far as the east is from the west." He knew that north and south touched at the poles but you can never end up going west if you start by flying east. That required a knowledge of the earth nobody else had.

You read too much into Christ's use of a common phrase.

So you deny all 333 miracles? Science tells us ax heads don't float and men can't walk on water. Remove the things that violate the laws of science from the Bible and you have a pamplet.

I don't deny a single miracle, and you are once again making stuff up out of your head about me - in other words you are telling another lie. Have you no respect for God's commandments?

The Bible doesn't say these things. If you read and understood it you would know better. These are the things atheists post, not Christians. You may well be sincere in your faith, but by the things you write and the way you subjugate the word of God to the theories of man, how would we know the difference between your posts and those of an atheist? You write the same things. You repeat their false claims. Stand up for the Lord and His word.

Your ideas about what scripture must be are THEORIES OF A MAN.

 

[KWCrazy]

The actual contradiction most commonly mentioned is the order of creation between man and animals. In chapter one verses 25 through 27, the animals are created first and then Adam. In chapter two, verses 18 through 19, man is created first, then the animals.

Wrong.
All were created in the sequence indicated in verse 1.
The animals were already created. God brought them to Adam to name after he was created.
Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

No new creation. The birds and animals already existed. This is another lie atheists tell. Why are YOU using it? As a Christian, you know better.

All the dinosaurs died before there ever was a man. That's a fact.

Verified by what authority?

The flood of Noah most likely happened at the end of the last ice age, and you are ignoring the topography created by the glaciers.

There is not now and never was any place on earth where the waters could be confined to be over mountain peaks for an entire year. Show me the barrier mountains in the Middle east, or admit that you are wrong.

Only if you insist yom has to mean day and can't mean other time frames, which you do insist on, but I don't accept that.

When used in conjunction with morning and evening or as numbered days, it means a single solar day 100% of the time without exception. You're flat out wrong and there isn't a single Hebrew scholar who you can produce that agrees with you. It's just like saying "July 14" instead of "in the days of."
Need proof you're wrong? Okay.
‘In Genesis 1, yôm comes with “evening” and “morning”, and is modified by a number. So it’s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day—the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise (notice too that in Jeremiah 33:17–22, God’s covenant with the day and the night, so that both will come at the appointed time, is as unalterable as the promise that a son of David will reign). But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil’s advocate—just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, “Did God really say?”’

One of the most familiar passages in the Hebrew Bible is found in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8, the “God makes all things beautiful in his time” passage. In Hebrew, two words for “time” appear. The passage begins “There is a season (זְמָן zeman) for everything, and a time (עֵת ‘et) for every activity under heaven: a time (עֵת) to be born and a time (עֵת) to die, a time (עֵת) to plant and a time (עֵת) to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal … ,” and so on. Whereas זְמָן is only used in the later books Esther, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, (עֵת) is used throughout Scripture, and would be an appropriate term to communicate an indefinite period of time, though most likely used without a number. source

You read too much into Christ's use of a common phrase.

And you read too little into it. Only someone who knew the earth was round could make such a statement.

I don't deny a single miracle,

You denied the six day creation
You denied the creation of Adam.
You denied that Adam and Eve were the first created humans, without parents.
You denied that Adam's sin brought death into the world.
You denied the global flood.
Don't claim you haven't denied God's miracles.
You also said "we are therefore guided by reality in how to interpret the Bible." What do you believe constitutes reality? Why would you use anything beyond the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible?
Can you explain to me how a man can float an ax head, or how the sun can stand still in the sky for an entire day?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Wrong.
All were created in the sequence indicated in verse 1.
The animals were already created. God brought them to Adam to name after he was created.
Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

No new creation. The birds and animals already existed. This is another lie atheists tell. Why are YOU using it? As a Christian, you know better.

Verified by what authority?

There is not now and never was any place on earth where the waters could be confined to be over mountain peaks for an entire year. Show me the barrier mountains in the Middle east, or admit that you are wrong.

When used in conjunction with morning and evening or as numbered days, it means a single solar day 100% of the time without exception. You're flat out wrong and there isn't a single Hebrew scholar who you can produce that agrees with you. It's just like saying "July 14" instead of "in the days of."
Need proof you're wrong? Okay.
‘In Genesis 1, yôm comes with “evening” and “morning”, and is modified by a number. So it’s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day—the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise (notice too that in Jeremiah 33:17–22, God’s covenant with the day and the night, so that both will come at the appointed time, is as unalterable as the promise that a son of David will reign). But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil’s advocate—just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, “Did God really say?”’

One of the most familiar passages in the Hebrew Bible is found in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8, the “God makes all things beautiful in his time” passage. In Hebrew, two words for “time” appear. The passage begins “There is a season (זְמָן zeman) for everything, and a time (עֵת ‘et) for every activity under heaven: a time (עֵת) to be born and a time (עֵת) to die, a time (עֵת) to plant and a time (עֵת) to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal … ,” and so on. Whereas זְמָן is only used in the later books Esther, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, (עֵת) is used throughout Scripture, and would be an appropriate term to communicate an indefinite period of time, though most likely used without a number. source

And you read too little into it. Only someone who knew the earth was round could make such a statement.

You denied the six day creation
You denied the creation of Adam.
You denied that Adam and Ever were the first created humans, without parents.
You denied that Adam's sin brought death into the world.
You denied the global flood.
Don't claim you haven't denied God's miracles.
You also said "we are therefore guided by reality in how to interpret the Bible." What do you believe constitutes reality? Why would you use anything beyond the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible?
Can you explain to me how a man can float an ax head, or how the sun can stand still in the sky for an entire day?

You quoted the wrong part of Genesis 2. Here is the part that describes the creation of Adam before plants, in contradiction to Genesis 1:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵ when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; ⁶ but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—⁷ then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

 

[KWCrazy]

You quoted the wrong part of Genesis 2. Here is the part that describes the creation of Adam before plants, in contradiction to Genesis 1:

Nice try.
A footnote in The Apologetics Study Bible explains:

Chapter 2 is a second creation account only in the sense that it gives a more detailed accounting, not a contradictory one. While chapter 1 provides a general description, chapter 2 is specific. Twofold accounts were common in ancient theories of creation (e.g., the Babylonian story of Atrahasis). The differences in the order of the creation events are due to the narratives’ respective purposes. The first gives a loosely chronological account, gathering creation events into a discernible pattern to show the symmetry of creation’s purpose. The second is topical, focusing on the sixth day by expanding on the creation and the relationship of the man and the woman. Genesis 2 presupposes chapter 1 and does not duplicate all the creation events. source

It is absolutely untrue that Genesis two is a second creation account.
It is absolutely untrue that Genesis two contradicts Genesis one.
Repeating this favorite lie of atheists shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scriptures.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Nice try.
A footnote in The Apologetics Study Bible explains:

Chapter 2 is a second creation account only in the sense that it gives a more detailed accounting, not a contradictory one. While chapter 1 provides a general description, chapter 2 is specific. Twofold accounts were common in ancient theories of creation (e.g., the Babylonian story of Atrahasis). The differences in the order of the creation events are due to the narratives’ respective purposes. The first gives a loosely chronological account, gathering creation events into a discernible pattern to show the symmetry of creation’s purpose. The second is topical, focusing on the sixth day by expanding on the creation and the relationship of the man and the woman. Genesis 2 presupposes chapter 1 and does not duplicate all the creation events. source

It is absolutely untrue that Genesis two is a second creation account.
It is absolutely untrue that Genesis two contradicts Genesis one.
Repeating this favorite lie of atheists shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scriptures.

I don't buy it. Your Apologetics Study Bible seems to be twisting the text in its comentary.

Genesis 1:
Day 3:
Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. ¹² The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.

Man was then created on day 6, after the plants.

Genesis 2:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵ when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; ⁶ but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—⁷ then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

See, Genesis 2 is quite clear that there were no plants in the field when God created Adam. How is this if plants were created on Day 3 and Genesis 2 is all about Day 6?

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't buy it.

I frankly don't care.
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:
We call these crops. Plants and herbs of the field are things which are grown for food.
This is not talking about all plants and grasses. They were created on day four. This is an account of the garden of Eden and the planting of tillable crops.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Now there are plants, but still no man to till the soil.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
So after God planted the Garden of Eden, He put man there. That is what is being discussed, not the creation of all plants and animals. Remember, chapter two begins by saying that the creation was complete.

So Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden AFTER God planted it. Since Eden was man's point of origination, it's clear that man's creation took place after the planting of the garden. Otherwise Adam would have to be someplace else until the garden was completed.

Despite having this explained, possibly dozens of times, I'm sure you and others will continue to repeat that false claim that the two chapters contradict each other. I can name several right now who know better and continue to repeat the false claim at every opportunity. I will be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong and you will come to the understanding that the word of God is not flawed.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I frankly don't care.
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:
We call these crops. Plants and herbs of the field are things which are grown for food.
This is not talking about all plants and grasses. They were created on day four. This is an account of the garden of Eden and the planting of tillable crops.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Now there are plants, but still no man to till the soil.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
So after God planted the Garden of Eden, He put man there. That is what is being discussed, not the creation of all plants and animals. Remember, chapter two begins by saying that the creation was complete.

So Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden AFTER God planted it. Since Eden was man's point of origination, it's clear that man's creation took place after the planting of the garden. Otherwise Adam would have to be someplace else until the garden was completed.

Despite having this explained, possibly dozens of times, I'm sure you and others will continue to repeat that false claim that the two chapters contradict each other. I can name several right now who know better and continue to repeat the false claim at every opportunity. I will be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong and you will come to the understanding that the word of God is not flawed.

I didn't say it was flawed. I have always contended that it is allegory.

You (creationists) constantly accuse evolutionists of twisting the geologic record to suit their needs, yet you all bend over backwards to make a literal translation of Genesis work.

Two sides of the same coin.

 

[KWCrazy]

I didn't say it was flawed. I have always contended that it is allegory.

Then you've always been wrong.

You (creationists) constantly accuse evolutionists of twisting the geologic record to suit their needs, yet you all bend over backwards to make a literal translation of Genesis work.

It's called explaining things to someone who doesn't understand.
Thank you for confirming that it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to evolutionists. I'm sure I'm right that you'll continue the false claim that the two chapters contradict each other even though now you know they do not.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Then you've always been wrong.

It's called explaining things to someone who doesn't understand.
Thank you for confirming that it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to evolutionists. I'm sure I'm right that you'll continue the false claim that the two chapters contradict each other even though now you know they do not.

I don't know that they don't contradict each other. I still believe that they do, but an allegorical interpretation solves that problem.

One day, we will get to ask God who is right. Until then, we all need to accept that there are differing interpretations of Genesis.

 

[KWCrazy]

One day, we will get to ask God who is right. Until then, we all need to accept that there are differing interpretations of Genesis.

In the mean time, since Christ called the Scriptures the breathed word of God and said that man needed every word that came from the mouth of God, I'll stick with the understanding the the Bible is God's word and thus the final authority. See you there.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In the mean time, since Christ called the Scriptures the breathed word of God and said that man needed every word that came from the mouth of God, I'll stick with the understanding the the Bible is God's word and thus the final authority. See you there.

As a prophet . . . one who proclaims what God says . . . your track record is failing, since you deny evolution and deny the age of the earth. This means we don't have to fear or respect your interpretation.