Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

[GodSaves]

Ok. So many TE's claim that Genesis has contradictions when read. All the ones I have run across have also claimed that the Bible is fallible. So I ask each person who responds to answer these:

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)
2. Are you a TE or a YEC?
3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?
5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?
6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?

I don't see anyones thinking being changed, rather though we can clear up these so called contradictions and this so called fallible Bible statement made by some in the past.

God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i don't know how to explain it better than
evolution is a scientific theory, it is not a religious notion.
therefore questions 3,4,6 have no answers as they are nonsense.
2. that is answerable, i'm a providential evolutionist see my page on the topic at:http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

1. you need to define fallible, first.
5. you need to define contradiction
7. is a false dichomotomy and the fallacy of a double question and is not answerable.

you won't find it anywhere in the Scriptures, nor will you find quarks, nor NP junctions, nor GLO pseudogenes. The Bible is not a scientific text and to read it as such MISSES the point.

The universe is continguent, you must look at it, you must read the books of works to understand how God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible tells us WHO not how.

from my review of
_the fourth day: what the Bible and the Heavens are telling us about the Creation_
a book you really ought to read....

THE FOURTH DAY: what the Bible and the Heavens are telling us about the Creation
Howard J. Van Till

amazon link

This will be the hardest review yet. The book is a five star must read, filled with important ideas.
Most of all it shows the way clear for solutions for several problems i am currently working on.
So i will have to fall back on good technique, *grin*, and start with an outline for this review.

title of the review: neither Right nor Left but OUT IN FRONT



Purpose:

Like the German Green's motto " neither Right nor Left but OUT IN FRONT" this book takes on both sides of the CED debate.
and in doing so moves the whole discussion into a new higher level:
---quote---
"It is my contention that neither the scriptural nor the scientific view of the cosmos is complete in itself, despite the fact that each view contributes an essential perspective on the complete reality. Through the spectacles of scriptual exegesis, we Christians see the cosmos as Creation: we see where it stands in relationship to God the Creator,who is its Originator, Preserver, Governor, and Provider. Through the lens of scientific investigation, natural scientists are able to observe the internal affairs of the material world--its coherent properties, its lawful behavior, and its authentic history. Both views are integral parts of what I call the 'creationomic perspective,' the view of the cosmos that is gained when natural science is place in the framework of the biblical doctrine of creation." preface pg ix
---end of quote---

The take home message is simple enough:

God is Creator, Sustainer, Law-Giver, and Provider.


What this book is not, it is not primarily an entry into the CED(creation, evolution, design) debate. Although it bears heavily on the discussion and in fact directly addresses the issue in chapter 11, this is not the author's primary motivation. He is, as he states in the preface, a member of two communities: the one of science, for he is a professor of Astronomy? at Calvin College, as well a member of the Christian community(CRC). I see his book as a genuine attempt to explain himself and his ideas to both communities, in the hope that his views will be valuable to both his committments, and in doing so do justice to his deepest convictions.

What the book is: two pieces of a single argument,
part one= The Biblical View, chapter one="Taking the Bible Seriously",
part two= The Scientific View, chapter six="Taking the Cosmos Seriously",
part three=Integrating the Two Views, chapter 10="Taking Both the Bible and the Cosmos Seriously"
The structure of the book itself mirrors the argument, analogously to the way the structure of Genesis 1-3 mirrors the "covenantal document --covenantal not only in function but in form",pg 79 the major exegetical conclusion following M. Kline's framework principle.

But for purposes of organization I am going to start the review with chapter 10, with a table, from pg198.

categories of questions.......................................................................Appropriate sources of answers
about the material world......................................................................for the Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A internal affairs................................................................................the created cosmos itself, which is constituted
.....1. Properties.................................................................................and governed in such a way that it is amenable
.....2. Behavior...................................................................................to empirical investigation and is intelligible to
.....3. History......................................................................................the human mind.

B external relationships.....................................................................The Bible, the covenantal canon, which was
.....1. Status......................................................................................written principally for the purposes of revealing
.....2. Origin.......................................................................................the divinely established covenantal relationship
.....3. Governance..............................................................................among God, mankind, and the rest of Creation,
.....4. Value........................................................................................and of providing a witness of past human
.....5. Purpose....................................................................................experience with the Creator-Redeemer

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

This in a single table is the argument of the book, but to understand the critical component: the categories of questions you need to hear the example he uses.
Holding up a piece of paper, he asks you to describe it, one voice answers GREEN, another offers SQUARE. pg 204-5 The paper is in fact, both. Is these two pieces of information contradictory, of course not, it is complementary, coming from two different viewpoints. The extend the example in a way that the author does not, to which person do you address the questions concerning shape, to which do you address questions concerning color?

In a like manner, to Scripture you address questions of the I-Thou relationship concerning things that deal with: status, origin, governance, value and purpose.
To Science, you address a different but COMPLEMENTARY set of issues concerning properties, behavior, history.

Is this the same idea as Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA? (non-overlapping magisteria). No, Gould divides up the universe of discourse, the things we talk about into two mutually exclusive pieces. This division is concerning the questions we ask of each. Both pieces exist in this world, in this world are found the answers each proposes. Another important issue, at least for me, is the relationship of this division to Abraham Kuyer's concept of two sciences. Van Till explicitly covers this on pages 211-2 where he argues that it is the extension of science into naturalistic scientism that is Kuyer's first science, and that science extended by Christian assumptions and leading to Christian conclusions about the world that becomes the 2nd science, which Van Till terms, creationomic. So essentially we return the argument about atheistic scientism versus theism back to the domain of metaphysics from the domain of science, where it rightfully belongs.

The first part concerns Scripture and how to build a correct hermeneutic to interpret it by. Again he introduces a good illustration, i suspect from his years of teaching this has proven to be a good memory technic and organizing principle: good illustrations. It is the vehicle model of Scripture, pg 14ff, a caravan of vehicles carrying packages with things inside the packages, think a bunch of UPS brown vans. (looks remarkably like the compiler theory train) The vehicle is the cultural historical context as expressed in the literary genre the passage is written in. The packages are the specific story, particular symbolism in a poem, specific cultural patterns. The contents are God's message to His people, in all places, throughout all time. And from pg 83, "In either case, if we attempt to consume both the content and the packaging, we may encounter significant difficulty in chewing, swallowing, and digesting the combination. Those who want to feed on the truths of Scripture must take care to differentiate between food and packaging." The two cases to distinguish are a journalistic account of the actual events of creation(think video tape) from the primeval history account that we have in Genesis.(think metaphorical origins story- mythos)


Scientism and YEC(young earth creationists)- chapter 11, " more heat than light, the creation/evolution debate" and the real battle with unbelieving scientific naturalism as a religious doctrine. Van Till makes it clear throughout the book that the YEC position of apparent age is nothing more than bad science and bad theology, for it denies the coherence of creation. It denies that God created the universe with sufficent thought to have inside it the things it needs to build up the complexity we see around us. By more importantly it denies the value of creation as an arena for the providence of God, to operate through the use of physical means.

I finished the book with a touch of sadness. For the time, energy, and people the false debate of CED is consuming in the Christian community. While good frameworks like Van Till's are neglected for want of people to work on them. If AiG or ICR did not exist, and that energy and talent was used to advance Van Tills type of arguments the Church would be far along the way to competing with the real enemy. Scientism, the world and life view that we are nothing more than sophisticated machines, the result of mindless and random meanderings through the genetic space of living beings. This is a religious, a metaphysical battle, not scientific. For science rightfully limits itself to the things of this creation, the things we see and the forces we can theorize behind them. The YEC have diverted an enormous amount of energy into bad science, trying to fight a battle at the level of facts, denying the clear evidence for an old earth, while misinterpreting the preamble of the Great KIng of Genesis One as a scientific how-to-do book on the manufacture of us. Sadly we are all the weaker knowing that good ideas like this book have been around since 1986 and are yet to be discovered.

I hope you discover this book as a result of my review. It will well worth the time to read, and i didn't even try to tell you the gems in the astronomy section--part 2.

thanks for listening.

richard williams

version dated 13 Mar 2003

 

[GodSaves]

Thank you Richard, I will check it out. I appreciate your comments!

God Bless

 

[GenemZ]

Ok. So many TE's claim that Genesis has contradictions when read. All the ones I have run across have also claimed that the Bible is fallible. So I ask each person who responds to answer these:

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)
2. Are you a TE or a YEC?
3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?
5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?
6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?

I don't see anyones thinking being changed, rather though we can clear up these so called contradictions and this so called fallible Bible statement made by some in the past.

God Bless

Problem here, is that we are working with opposing errors.

The evolutionists see the fallacy of a young earth... and the Young earthers see the fallacy of many things evolutionists believe. Problem is, they will be forever feuding, because both are wrong at their foundational belief.

This current creation which rests upon the surface of the earth is relatively young. But, the earth itself is very old. And, Bible students should take note. There will be a new creation in the future. It will replace this one.

It will be called the New Heaven and New Earth. New animal life will exist! Lions will lay down with lambs. Both will eat grass! And, a young child can stick his hand into a viper's nest, and not be hurt. Also, men will live to be a thousand years old (if they are good, and behave themselves).

Now, we know the Bible teaches of a new earth for the future. But, what Yound Earthers fail to see is that there were prior creations, also. The GAP theory is often times thought of by the Young Earthers to be a scramble by Christian scholars to rectify the contradictions presented by evolutionary theory. These YEC's wish to cling to the traditional belief that Genesis is only about a young earth.

In his wisdom God had scientists discover the fossil records so the believers could understand the Bible better. But, some got stubborn and arrogant, because they had become smug and confident about their concept of creation was secure. Then, along came the atheist humanists and ripped off the shackles of religion's legalism. And, since the traditionalists were not working with Truth, the Holy Spirit was not able to give them power to convince the atheist humanist that they were wrong. Matter of fact, the Young Earth creationists only convinced the Atheists even more that Christianity is motivated by superstition and not based upon truth! That is because the fossil record demands the realization that this planet is a very old place.

But, what both camps fail to see is that there were multiple creations in the past, just as there will be new creations in the future. That is the way God operates. Its his modus operandi.

Now, for the Young Earth Creationists who claim the GAP theory was a mere invention by Christian scholars? An invention that was devised in order to resolve the conflict with the theory of evolution and the creation account? Little do they know, that even the first century scholar Origen saw in Genesis, a gap in time. He wondered why the earth was left in ruins and chaos. He could read Hebrew and knew what the Scriptures tell us. But, he had no concept of there being other created lifeforms, for the fossils were not yet known to man as being a past creation.

Here is an example of men seeing the GAP theory long before Darwin was born. This excerpt is from Arthur C. Custance's book, "Without Form and Void." Arthur Custance had a Ph.D in engineering, and qualified to be a Biblical scholar.

"Origen, for example, who lived from 186 to about 254 A.D., and

to whom the original languages of the Bible were very familiar, has

this to say in his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1:

"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of

in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven

and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we

now see afterwards borrowed their names."

And that he saw verse 2 as a description of a "casting down" of the

original is borne out quite clearly by his subsequent observation that

the condition resulted from a "disruption" which is best described, he

suggests, by the Latin verb dejicere, ‘to throw down’.

In the course of time, attempts were made - not unnaturally - to

fill in the details of the event which led up to the devastation described.

Since all such effects were presumed to be moral judgments and since

man had not yet been created, the angels were blamed. Somewhere

around 650 A.D. , the English poet Caedmon (who died about 680)

wrote about Genesis and the creation, and presented the view that

man had really been introduced in order to replace the angels which

had conducted their dominion over the earth so ruinously. Fallen

angels were responsible for the catastrophe. Whether the poems

attributed to Caedmon were really his is a moot point, but someone

in the seventh century knew about this tradition. According to Bede,

these poems we re supposed to have resulted from a dream in which

an angel told Caedmon to sing and write about the Creation. This

he finally did, though at first reluctantly, producing works dealing

with the creation of the world, the origin of man, and the whole history

of Genesis. All the 'poems' or songs thus attributed to Caedmon

were first published by Francis Junius in 1665 from a manuscript

now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford."

If you want to learn more about Arthur Constance, you can go to the following link...

http://www.custance.org/insight.html

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)
Fallible

2. Are you a TE or a YEC?
TE

3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
It doesn't. But then again Genesis does not suggest anything about bacteria, current theories on how weather happens or electricity either.

4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?
Who am I to question God

5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?
The order of events in the two different Genesis stories provided

6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
There are none. But then again there are no bible verses to prove that the human mind occurs in the brain, that our bloodstream carries oxygen and nutrients, that lightning is a form of electricity, that all people have unique fingerprints which can be used for identification, that family traits are passed on through a chemical called DNA, or that the moon has no atmosphere. But that does not mean that those things are wrong does it?

7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?
I think the creation stories in Genesis are an amalgam of different oral traditions (legends and myths) that had been passed down for generations before anybody ever wrote anything down.

 

[GodSaves]

Thank you genez. You know I have heard of and know about the Gap Theory, but I have not met anyone who holds it. Thanks for your comments, and for the link I will read it.

God Bless

 

[gluadys]

Ok. So many TE's claim that Genesis has contradictions when read. All the ones I have run across have also claimed that the Bible is fallible. So I ask each person who responds to answer these:

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)

That is not a yes/no question. There are different definitions of fallible.


2. Are you a TE or a YEC?

TE

3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?

Obviously it doesn't. That is why it took scientific investigation to come up with the idea. It's not obvious on the surface of either scripture or nature, but becomes obvious as nature is studied.


4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?

This is a false dichotomy. From a TE perspective, evolution IS creation, so God did not make a choice between them.


5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?

Do you mean anywhere in Genesis or just the 1st two chapters?



6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.

No can do. Evolution is proved by scientific investigation, not by reading the scriptures.


7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?

Neither. I believe God inspired several writers to set down mythical accounts of creation, and inspired the compiler of the writings to include them in what we now call the canonical scriptures. It would appear that Genesis 1:1-2:4a was specifically written to counteract the polytheism of the Babylonian religion which was very influential at the time because Babylon was a major political power.

 

[GenemZ]

3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
It doesn't. But then again Genesis does not suggest anything about bacteria, current theories on how weather happens or electricity either.

Well, the Bible does suggest something about bacteria.

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." Matthew 9:17

The fermentation process causes the wineskins to expand. If they were old skins, they could not stretch any more, and would burst. Also, many passages in the NT speak of "yeast" working its way through a food.

4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?
Who am I to question God

But, you have questioned God.

5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?
The order of events in the two different Genesis stories provided

In the English they appear to be two different stories. In the Hebrew, they are two different phases of creation. God creates "out from nothing" in chapter One. In chapter Two, God no longer creates "out from nothing," and works with what has been created.

The First chapter is foundational to the second. In the First, God is said to "see" it is very good. God has the ability to see what will be as if it is in the past, if he wishes. In Genesis One, in certain instances, God was seeing what he was creating as it was to become. Chapter Two, is the "becoming."

6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
There are none. But then again there are no bible verses to prove that the human mind occurs in the brain, that our bloodstream carries oxygen and nutrients, that lightning is a form of electricity, that all people have unique fingerprints which can be used for identification, that family traits are passed on through a chemical called DNA, or that the moon has no atmosphere. But that does not mean that those things are wrong does it?

God created the scientific mind to discover intricacies which exists in his creation, to show the Genius of God. But, sadly, too many scientists get hung up on their gift, and turn the glory inward in pride... Thinking that they are such geniuses. But they are not. Next to God, Einstein would feel like a complete babbling moron.

7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?
[/color]I think the creation stories in Genesis are an amalgam of different oral traditions (legends and myths) that had been passed down for generations before anybody ever wrote anything down.[/font]

Satan and his demons witnessed the various creations on this earth. That makes for fertile ground to produce pagan myths that contain elements of truth, but deny the truth at the same time.

Grace in peace, GeneZ

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Ok. So many TE's claim that Genesis has contradictions when read. All the ones I have run across have also claimed that the Bible is fallible. So I ask each person who responds to answer these:

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)

Every part of the Bible has a purpose and a message. However, our ability to interpret this message is very fallible. Our own falliblity makes the infallability of the Bible a moot question.

2. Are you a TE or a YEC?

TE

3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?

It doesn't. But neither does it intend to be a historical/scientific account.

4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?

Not really sure, God's ways being above our ways and all, but I can make some guesses. Evolution allowes the Univrese some participation in Creation. I like to think of God as a gardener or a director of a symphany. He is in control, but He also creates through interaction with Creation.

5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?

When one reads them with proper consideration of literary style and cultural context, there are no contradictions.

When read literally, there are some. Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 differ in the order of creation, the duration of creation, the timing of the creation of men and women, etc.

6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.

That's just silly. People don't demand Bible verses for proof for other scientific theories. They look at Creation to determine the action of the Creator.

Also, science doesn't prove anything. It determines what is true with increasing probability, but never with absolute proof.

7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?

I don't see anyones thinking being changed, rather though we can clear up these so called contradictions and this so called fallible Bible statement made by some in the past.

God Bless

God inspired some Hebrews to modify the myths of neighboring cultures to drive home points to His chosen people. It is very similar to the way Jesus used parables.

 

[artybloke]

Well, the Bible does suggest something about bacteria.

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." Matthew 9:17

The fermentation process causes the wineskins to expand. If they were old skins, they could not stretch any more, and would burst. Also, many passages in the NT speak of "yeast" working its way through a food.

All that is is simple observation. And yeast is not a bacterium.

 

[wobbly]

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)
No, but we are.

2. Are you a TE or a YEC?
Neither. I believe that God is the creator, and theat he may have used evolution. I can see theological reasons to beleive that Adam and Eve were created rather than evolved from animals but not for the rest.

3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
it doesn't

4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?
did he?
5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?
only our interpretations

6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
why? there are lots of things in the world that don't have biblical proof. or can you prove that you only should believe things that are proved in the bible.

7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?
It was given by God, but was it meant to be taken as a scientific explanation or a statement that the world was created by God at his word?

Actually I can't wait to get to heaven to find out exactly how it all happened.

cheers Martin

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Genez

Suggesting something about bacteria? I don't think they had an understanding of the microorganisms involved, only the observable results. Same goes for yeast.

When did I "question God"? Please show me where or when I did this.

If the english translation of the bible leads to a confusing misinterpretation is that not a sign of fallibility?

 

[GenemZ]

All that is is simple observation. And yeast is not a bacterium.

God had Louis Pasteur born with a purpose. He was a believer, by the way. What God wants us to know, he raises up someone to make it known. As long as what someone says does not blatanly contradict the Bible (and sometimes, cause a correction in wrong interpretaion) it is to further reveal the glorious creativity of God. After all, God created the very concept of quantum mechanics. Its mere child's play for Jesus Christ. We marvel at these things like a native in the jungle marvels when someone uses a cigarette lighter to make an instant flame. We are all primitive in what we know to the Lord. After all, he knows how to create atoms out from nothing.

And, you thought he only knew how to die on a cross?

God could have easily conveyed evolution in the Bible. It would have been simple to do. Just look at the Hindus who believe we come back in another form. The primitive mind could have grasped the concept of evolution. God would have made it known to us in the Bible. God would not have had to explain DNA to us. He would just tell us one animal changed to another by God's command. Quite simple. The primitive mind could have grasped it quickly. Yet, the primitive unregenerate mind can not grasp the Bible simply.

"The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 niv

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GodSaves]

I agree GeneZ. If God did create by evolution, He could have made it equally plain to the Hebrew people of the time.

One thing I see consistently from TE's is the remark, well where is computers or whatever mentioned in the Bible. Our discussion is not on technology or science in its whole. It is on the beginning and creation of our universe. The Bible does talk of this. I also see in all the TE's I have encountered, not one of them use any Biblical teachings to hold up their point. They choose to use man's logic and reasoning instead of scripture. I also see TE's take scripture and test it against evolution, and when they see a problem with it they still cling to evolution and change the direct literal meaning of Genesis. They forget that we are told to test everything against scripture, not the other way around. If TE's tested evolution to scripture what would be the outcome? Evolution would not stand up to the test. I don't believe God gave such a great account of length and detail just to state He created.

God Bless

 

[Mestel]

But in the real world Scripture does not help you solve the real problems of science, technology or engineering. You might as well use tea leaves as Genesis et al. Thus, there is a place for 'mans logic and reasoning' and a place for scripture.

 

[GodSaves]

Again, I said we are not looking for the Bible to explain all science, technology or engineering, but rather the creation of the universe which it does.

God Bless

 

[Mestel]

I'm afraid it only does that in the form of metaphor. If you want to understand the mechanistic side of creation then science is the path. If you want to understand the spiritual side of creation then use Genesis.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I agree GeneZ. If God did create by evolution, He could have made it equally plain to the Hebrew people of the time.

One thing I see consistently from TE's is the remark, well where is computers or whatever mentioned in the Bible. Our discussion is not on technology or science in its whole. It is on the beginning and creation of our universe. The Bible does talk of this. I also see in all the TE's I have encountered, not one of them use any Biblical teachings to hold up their point. They choose to use man's logic and reasoning instead of scripture. I also see TE's take scripture and test it against evolution, and when they see a problem with it they still cling to evolution and change the direct literal meaning of Genesis. They forget that we are told to test everything against scripture, not the other way around. If TE's tested evolution to scripture what would be the outcome? Evolution would not stand up to the test. I don't believe God gave such a great account of length and detail just to state He created.

God Bless

What reason would God have to give a detailed report of His creative acts? How is your salvation or relationship with God affected by how God created the ant?

 

[herev]

Our discussion is not on technology or science in its whole. It is on the beginning and creation of our universe. The Bible does talk of this. I also see in all the TE's I have encountered, not one of them use any Biblical teachings to hold up their point

Hello again my friend, the problem is that you fail to connect these two things as you interpret what we say over and over again. It is not that we expect the Bible to teach us about those things--it is that (once again_, we don't use scripture to back up the belief in evolution any more than we use the Bible to explain computers to us. That is the point. If someone were to teach you how to type, would you say, wait--show me in the Bible where it says that the index fingers shuld go on f and j?
As to the Bible speaking of it, yes it does--and I believe the Bible when it says what it does in Genesis 1-2, I simply believe it differently. It is amazing to me how seriously you want to interpret literally what is said in Genesis--though we haven't the opportunity to question Moses about it as the author. When I and other TE's make statements like the ones we just did, you read into it, twist it, and use it to say we said something we didn't. And in this case, you have the actual authors here to say to you, I meant what I said
Peace
Tommy

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree GeneZ. If God did create by evolution, He could have made it equally plain to the Hebrew people of the time.

One thing I see consistently from TE's is the remark, well where is computers or whatever mentioned in the Bible. Our discussion is not on technology or science in its whole. It is on the beginning and creation of our universe. The Bible does talk of this. I also see in all the TE's I have encountered, not one of them use any Biblical teachings to hold up their point. They choose to use man's logic and reasoning instead of scripture. I also see TE's take scripture and test it against evolution, and when they see a problem with it they still cling to evolution and change the direct literal meaning of Genesis. They forget that we are told to test everything against scripture, not the other way around. If TE's tested evolution to scripture what would be the outcome? Evolution would not stand up to the test. I don't believe God gave such a great account of length and detail just to state He created.

God Bless

you keep asking the same question.
and we continue to answer it.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

GOD created the heavens and the earth.

it answers the question WHO?
if you desire the answer to the question how? you address science.
the Scriptures speak only to WHO and WHY?
not mechanism.
i can't quote Scripture as to what happened, in what order because the answer is not there.

i don't know how to answer your question any other way.

----