Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

[GenemZ]

What God could do and what God does are not the same. People don't deny that God could dictate all of the books of the Bible. They deny that He did dictate them word for word. Those are two different assertions. Do not try to confuse the matter.

God does not pick Joe Shmo to write the words. God picked choice men. Just like a virtuoso can play a difficult piece with ease, does not mean you can give just anybody the challenge to do so. The Prophets and Apostles were choice people. They were prepared and tested for the job. Then, just as the Holy Spirit enabled the craftsmen to build the tabernacle, the Holy Spirit enabled the minds of those who penned the Scriptures to achieve what God desired. If God wanted it to be written in the personality of the writer, then being a prepared and mature believer... with the power of the Holy Spirit given, made God's Word just the way he intended it to be.

2 Timothy 3:16 niv

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."

2 Peter 1:20-21 niv

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

God did not simply use men as a mechanical writing tool. God allowed the man's personality (and mentality) to remain intact. God carefully chose each one who was to be used for this task. And, since God gives gifts for communication and intellect, God had no problem arranging to have the right man for the job present when something was needed to be put on record as Scripture.

Now, it really breaks down to this. Do you believe God is real? If so, is anything impossible with God? You are saying there is. That God is powerful, but not all powerful. That God knows a lot more than we do, but does not know all there is to be known. You limit God. Possibly, because of a need of yours to compete?

God wanted the Bible to be written by choice men. Those he Chose for the task. You are telling us that God can not do this. That God is not competent to do such a thing.

2 Timothy 3:16 niv

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."

2 Peter 1:20-21 niv

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I believe it. Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

there are entire books dedicated to this question.
i posted my reviews of three, how can you ask for an answer to this question when even book length treatments are inadequate.

for more see:
Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview
by Meredith G. Kline

The Structure of Biblical Authority
by Meredith G. Kline

or the webpages:
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html

Well, let's look at a bit of this one. Shall we?

>But what about the fourth day itself? Does not the fact that the luminaries were created later, four days after the creation of day and night, prove that the first three days were non-solar? That is one possible interpretation of the fourth day, although the difficulties raised above would still remain (e.g., why did God name these allegedly sunless days "days," complete with sunset and sunrise?).<

This author is not a good student of the Hebrew. God did not create the luminaries. The Hebrew says that he made them to bear light. These orbs were pre-existing, and were only transformed by God into becoming light bearers. The first three days without these luminaries were to give us insight into the prehistoric world which did not depend on the sun and stars for its light.... but, that's another story.

See? If you were better taught on the Scripture, you would already know that this man's premise was not based upon accurate data.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF12-98Irons.html
http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=10

any of which do a far better job than i can.

Then you fail the exam.

btw, the issue is not a simply dichomoty between either allegory or literal. for framework is a literary structure genre interpretation, which treats Genesis 1 as literal but not historical.

From the little I have shown you, that is already proven wrong. How can an erroneous translation be literal? Erroneous translations lead to erroneous conclusions. Erroneous conclusions leads some to the theory of evolution (which is misinterpretation of the data). YEC's are just as guilty of such error. Since both are wrong. But both think they have to be right... we find ourselves with a perpetual Hatfields and McCoys situation in debate. Never ending. Never resolved.

The Truth will make you free.... GeneZ

---[/QUOTE]

 

[herev]

Thank you for pointing me a thread where almost every person ridicules and makes fun of YEC's. I appreciate it. I am glad that you found many non-believers who think you holding evolution as a belief is the right thing. It is very reassuring to have so many always adding ridicule for us(YEC) putting so much faith in God and His Word and not believing in any new teaching that comes up and is popular among man. And I mean that, honestly without sarcasm. If today's Christians are not persecuted, why not? Throughout history Christians have always been persecuted, and if Christians are not, maybe one needs to look at how strong their stance in Christ is.

I have never questioned any TE's salvation. I have questioned TE's overall strength of faith in God because they hold to mens teachings which has no support from the Bible. We test worldly teachings that contend with Biblical ones against the Bible and if they don't stand we don't believe in them.

Between you and I, herev, this discussion is moot. I will continue to hold to Paul's and the Bibles teachings and put them into practice.

God Bless

Please forgive me
I am so sorry, I failed to THINK. I was not trying to send you to a place to be ridiculed, my point was to see how 1st century Jews held the creation accounts. I apologize for the insult. It was unintended. YOu didn't deserve it. Please forgive me
Humbled
Tommy

 

[Eric_C]

I have a two part challenge for the Theistic Evolutionist.

1) You say that you can interpret the Genesis creation account as non literal. Please demonstrate that this hermeneutic works in another passage of same type, such as, Jesus walking on the water, feeding the multitudes with a few loaves and a few fish, The Resurrection, restoring sight to the physically blind. All of these are an account of a supernatural event, as is the creation account.

They are not passages of the same type.

Please give the evidence to support that the Genesis creation account is not that, of a supernatural event. Or answer the challenge with the requested demonstration. Stating your opinion with out anything to support it, it does nothing.

2) Causing space, matter and life on the earth to come into existence is a supernatural event. The only way that we can understand what happened is to read the literal meanings of the words that describe the event, if the literal meanings don't apply, how then, do we know what happened? That is a rhetorical question.

Please explain to me how it is that you come to the notion that by studying the natural universe and all of its processes, including life, that you're going to explain how God brought it into existence?

The initial creative event and all subsequent creative acts are beyond our understanding. However, God did create a Universe with physical laws. We can use these laws to reconstruct much of the history of Creation. This is what science does. I don't know how Jesus multiplied loaves, but the loaves would have followed the physical laws of Creation. They would have nourished the crowd. The fragments would probably become stale and moldy after a period of time. Just because something has a supernatural origin does not mean that its behavior is beyond our ability to study and comprehend.

In your first sentence you appear to concede the point, the supernatural event of creation from nonexistence to existence is beyond our (mans) understanding. Then in your second sentence you seem to be contradicting the first. The third sentence I completely disagree with. Real science tells how things work in the here and now, how that relates to the past can only be inferred or interpreted. Both of us know that interpretation and inference of scientific data are highly subjective to personal perception of the universe. In other words, those looking for evolution are going to find it, those looking for special creation are going to find it..... Those looking for a space ship fallowing behind Hale-Bop are going to find it.

I'm not sure about where you're going with the comments about the bread? The miracle is in the multiplying, not the bread itself. Hence my point, even if you could study a piece of that leftover bread, it would never tell you how it was multiplied, that is what makes it a supernatural event. The same is true of creation week, it is not going on today (Genesis 2:1-3), all that we have today is the natural processes, the leftover pieces of bread, they will never tell us how the supernatural was accomplished.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[Eric_C]

to give us insight into the prehistoric world which did not depend on the sun and stars for its light.... but, that's another story.

I would like to here about that story. Another thread maybe.

YEC's are just as guilty of such error.

I kind of agree with you here. I don't believe that science should be involved in answering theological or philosophical questions, such as the origin of the universe, origin of life. The Bible clearly identifies these as matters of faith for the Christian. Now, I don't have a problem with scientist, who are Christians, going out and examining the creation in search of evidence to support the various Biblical accounts. Even further, in finding evidence to defend against the assault on the Christian Church from the religion of Humanism. Which I believe has hijacked science over the last hundred years or so, to that end, the elimination of all religion that does not worship the human (my paraphrase of The Humanist manifesto). The evidence of this religions influence is all over our society, we are steeped in vanity. Drugs being pushed on TV, not happy? take this pill, not horny? take this pill, too fat? take this pill, all vanity. Not that I'm unsympathetic to these problems but, are drugs really the answer? What of the next generation growing up to the tune of every day drug use? Are they being primed for the Twilight Zones "can of instant smile"? (only those who've seen that episode will get it ) Humanism is slowly creeping its way into the Christian Church, evolution, sexual perversion, self worship, all of these things are found within the church in growing numbers. The humanist Bible consists of the writings of Darwin and their gospel is the Humanist Manifesto.

Humanist Manifesto 1933

"FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process."

Humanist Manifesto 1973

"Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."

Humanist Manifesto 2003

"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing."

http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html

Any Christians who stand against these Humanists, I stand with them.

I'm a YEC by default, that is, I haven't found any creation theory that doesn't twist, distort or reed into the text.

I set aside Gap Theory because I see no reason in the text for separating Gen 1:1 from day one, other than the theory requires it. Thats not good enough.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure about where you're going with the comments about the bread? The miracle is in the multiplying, not the bread itself. Hence my point, even if you could study a piece of that leftover bread, it would never tell you how it was multiplied, that is what makes it a supernatural event. The same is true of creation week, it is not going on today (Genesis 2:1-3), all that we have today is the natural processes, the leftover pieces of bread, they will never tell us how the supernatural was accomplished.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

One very interesting thing is that not one of the four accounts of the loaves and fishes event actually says that Jesus caused them to multiply. That is an inference from what the text does say.

So why can we not make the same sort of inference about natural processes?

 

[Eric_C]

One very interesting thing is that not one of the four accounts of the loaves and fishes event actually says that Jesus caused them to multiply. That is an inference from what the text does say.

So why can we not make the same sort of inference about natural processes?

Nice try, but no cigar.

Mark 8:18-19

Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This author is not a good student of the Hebrew. God did not create the luminaries. The Hebrew says that he made them to bear light. These orbs were pre-existing, and were only transformed by God into becoming light bearers. The first three days without these luminaries were to give us insight into the prehistoric world which did not depend on the sun and stars for its light.... but, that's another story.

i'm going to go ahead and cast my fate into the hands of Kline, who taught OT and knows the Hebrew, and into the hands of the best tradition which teaches that God did create ex nihilo and did create the luminaries, and not seek answers in your gap theory.

sorry, but there is nothing i've seen there that is persuasive nor even very interesting.
nice to talk to you but the effort seems unrewarding.

----

 

[gluadys]

Nice try, but no cigar.

Mark 8:18-19

Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

Right. It says he broke the loaves. It says the disciples gathered up many baskets of bread fragments.

But where does it say that Jesus multiplied the loaves?

Look at the actual description of the events.

"Taking up the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people: and he divided the fish among them all." Mark 6:41

"looked to heaven"
"blessed"
"broke"
"gave ... to his disciples"
to "set before" the people
"divided"

Nowhere does it say that Jesus "multiplied" anything.

"Then he ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute; and they distributed them to the crowd. They had also a few small fish: and after blessing them, he ordered that these too should be distributed." Mark 8: 6-7

"took"
"gave thanks"
"broke"
"gave to disciples"
"[disciples] distributed"
"blessing"
"ordered .... distributed"

Again--no mention at all of "multiplying".

Nor in Mark 8:18-19

Nor in any other record of this event.

All we really know is this:

1. Jesus blessed, broke, and gave to his disciples some fragments of bread and fish and the disciples either "set before" or "distributed" these to the crowd.

2. The crowd ate their fill.

3. The disciples gathered from 7 to 12 baskets of scraps.

Now obviously something happened.

But the text does not say that the something that happened was a miraculous multiplying of the amount of food.

That is an inference from the text. It is not stated in the text.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Please give the evidence to support that the Genesis creation account is not that, of a supernatural event. Or answer the challenge with the requested demonstration. Stating your opinion with out anything to support it, it does nothing.

The Gospels are religious biography. Genesis is a collection of myths. Since they are different literary genres, it would be foolish to treat them the same way.

In your first sentence you appear to concede the point, the supernatural event of creation from nonexistence to existence is beyond our (mans) understanding.

Yes, we cannot understand creation from nothing since we cannot do it or control it.

Then in your second sentence you seem to be contradicting the first.

Are you denying God made natural laws, laws that govern the motion of the planets, the interactions of molecules, etc? Creation acts in very predictable ways. God set up Laws of Nature. We can determine these laws by studying His Creation.

The third sentence I completely disagree with. Real science tells how things work in the here and now, how that relates to the past can only be inferred or interpreted. Both of us know that interpretation and inference of scientific data are highly subjective to personal perception of the universe. In other words, those looking for evolution are going to find it, those looking for special creation are going to find it..... Those looking for a space ship fallowing behind Hale-Bop are going to find it.

It is not a mere matter of interpretation. Interpretations have consequences. Consequences have measurable effects. We can look for these measurable effects to see if the consequences and therefore the interpretation are right. True interpretations cannot have false consequences.

I'm not sure about where you're going with the comments about the bread? The miracle is in the multiplying, not the bread itself. Hence my point, even if you could study a piece of that leftover bread, it would never tell you how it was multiplied, that is what makes it a supernatural event. The same is true of creation week, it is not going on today (Genesis 2:1-3), all that we have today is the natural processes, the leftover pieces of bread, they will never tell us how the supernatural was accomplished.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

You could not tell how it was multiplied or even that it was multiplied, but you could tell it was bread. In the same way, we can't know how God created the Universe, but the Universe is made up of matter and we know how matter acts. Just as one can trace the path of a baseball back to the person who threw it, we can trace the history of the Universe to the time God created it.

 

[Faith In God]

The Gospels are religious biography. Genesis is a collection of myths. Since they are different literary genres, it would be foolish to treat them the same way.

...you did not answer the question. this is not evidence, you just stated your position.

 

[Eric_C]

Right. It says he broke the loaves. It says the disciples gathered up many baskets of bread fragments.

But where does it say that Jesus multiplied the loaves?

Look at the actual description of the events.

"Taking up the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people: and he divided the fish among them all." Mark 6:41

"looked to heaven"

"blessed"

"broke"

"gave ... to his disciples"

to "set before" the people

"divided"

Nowhere does it say that Jesus "multiplied" anything.

"Then he ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute; and they distributed them to the crowd. They had also a few small fish: and after blessing them, he ordered that these too should be distributed." Mark 8: 6-7

"took"

"gave thanks"

"broke"

"gave to disciples"

"[disciples] distributed"

"blessing"

"ordered .... distributed"

Again--no mention at all of "multiplying".

Nor in Mark 8:18-19

Nor in any other record of this event.

All we really know is this:

1. Jesus blessed, broke, and gave to his disciples some fragments of bread and fish and the disciples either "set before" or "distributed" these to the crowd.

2. The crowd ate their fill.

3. The disciples gathered from 7 to 12 baskets of scraps.

Now obviously something happened.

But the text does not say that the something that happened was a miraculous multiplying of the amount of food.

That is an inference from the text. It is not stated in the text.

Multiply is a word that I used, I never said that word was in the text.

This is what you said

"One very interesting thing is that not one of the four accounts of the loaves and fishes event actually says that Jesus caused them to multiply. That is an inference from what the text does say.

So why can we not make the same sort of inference about natural processes?"

I agree, that word is not in the text, that was never in dispute. Your assertion "actually says that Jesus caused" is, at least that is what I thought.

If your focus was whether or not the word multiply was in the text you should have made that more clear. My use of the word multiply was not a direct cause of inference, it was caused by my lack of memory, I didn't look the passage up when reffering to it in my earlier post. Please forgive me.

BTW, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and a few fish is, in itself, a miracle, it needs no inference.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[Eric_C]

fragmentsofdreams quoted in italic

"The Gospels are religious biography. Genesis is a collection of myths. Since they are different literary genres, it would be foolish to treat them the same way."

My challenge was not limited to the gospels. If you are willing to take on the challenge, pick the recorded supernatural event of your choice.



"Are you denying God made natural laws, laws that govern the motion of the planets, the interactions of molecules, etc? Creation acts in very predictable ways. God set up Laws of Nature. We can determine these laws by studying His Creation."

No, and you're missing the point, deliberate I suspect.



"It is not a mere matter of interpretation. Interpretations have consequences. Consequences have measurable effects. We can look for these measurable effects to see if the consequences and therefore the interpretation are right. True interpretations cannot have false consequences."

And every part of the process is affected by ones perception of origins.



"You could not tell how it was multiplied or even that it was multiplied, but you could tell it was bread."

And all that you can tell about the universe, is that it is the universe, and that God created it.



"In the same way, we can't know how God created the Universe, but the Universe is made up of matter and we know how matter acts."

Well, explain gravity then, why does matter act in that way? Sense you know how it acts.



"Just as one can trace the path of a baseball back to the person who threw it, we can trace the history of the Universe to the time God created it."

No, you cannot. Two completely deferent things, one can be observed, the other cannot.

Unless..., do you have a time travel machine to trace with?

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[Mestel]

"Just as one can trace the path of a baseball back to the person who threw it, we can trace the history of the Universe to the time God created it."

No, you cannot. Two completely deferent things, one can be observed, the other cannot.

Unless..., do you have a time travel machine to trace with?

Are you really not seeing the huge error you are making here? We do have a time travel machine, it is called a telescope. When you observe ever more distant objects you are looking back in time and directly observing the Universe as it was at an earlier time. Don't tell me you fail to understand this?

 

[Faith In God]

Are you really not seeing the huge error you are making here? We do have a time travel machine, it is called a telescope. When you observe ever more distant objects you are looking back in time and directly observing the Universe as it was at an earlier time. Don't tell me you fail to understand this?
[/size][/size][/color][/font]

that doesn't really work if God is consistant in creation.

you look at this as if God created with a 'big bang'. but think about this.

God created Adam and Eve as man and woman, not infants. so when Adam was physically a full grown man, he was only several minutes old.

The same applies with the universe. while it may be several billions of years old physically, it is really only several thousand.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

...you did not answer the question. this is not evidence, you just stated your position.

Genesis is a collection of myths. Furthermore, it is a collection of myths borrrowed from surrounding cultures and modified. It draws from both Egyptian and Babylonian/Sumerian myths but changes them in order to show how God is different from the gods of other cultures. Natural forces deified by other cultures are eplicitly treated as creations of God. The Egyptian idea that knowledge of moral order brought power is attacked.

 

[Mestel]

that doesn't really work if God is consistant in creation.

you look at this as if God created with a 'big bang'. but think about this.

God created Adam and Eve as man and woman, not infants. so when Adam was physically a full grown man, he was only several minutes old.

The same applies with the universe. while it may be several billions of years old physically, it is really only several thousand.

You can live your life blinkered with respect to reality but I choose to open my eyes each and every morning.

 

[GodSaves]

Has any TE's have comments on Hebrews 11:1-3 as far as evolution? Does Hebrews 11:1-3 and evolution live in harmony? I am amazed that none of those who believe in evolution and are professing Christians have not tested it against the scriptures. If you have then present more then Genesis 1 and 2 that show evolution and scriptures live in harmony with one another.

All I have seen so far are ones presenting books other then the Bible. Even presenting Darwin as their proof. No one has brought the Bible to show harmony. This is what TE's state, that evolution and the Bible live in harmony, correct?

Some things you may want to search the Bible for to show harmony are:

1. Any scripture that eludes to evolution itself.
2. Scripture that says it wasn't one man who brought death into the world.
3. Scripture that says death only means spiritual death.
4. Scripture that says Jesus died only spiritually.
5. Scripture that talks about Adam not being a real man.
6. Scripture that eludes to things on our earth developing over time.
7. Scripture that eludes that death was in the world before Adam.
8. Scripture that says Genesis is just a song and eludes to the fact that it is historically and literally incorrect.
9. Scripture that says we are to look to creation and mans teaching of it to understand the teachings of the Bible.
10. Scripture that says the Bible is not God's Word.

This is what is meant as testing everything against scripture. If any claim they have done so with evolution that takes the place of creationism then present it. Present the scriptures that you have tested it against. Explain my list of 10, showing with scriptures where it is said. If you cannot then I believe you have not tested evolution against the scriptures. If you turn around and give quotes from Darwin, or some other person/book other then the Bible you aren't doing what is commanded of you by God.(test everything against scripture)

Surely if you have tested this teaching of men against scripture this will be an easy task. For you have already done the work. You just have to present it. Start with the simple verse Hebrews 11:1-3 and explain the harmony that exists between evolution and the scriptures.

Hebrews 11:1-3
"1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

God Bless

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

fragmentsofdreams quoted in italic

"The Gospels are religious biography. Genesis is a collection of myths. Since they are different literary genres, it would be foolish to treat them the same way."

My challenge was not limited to the gospels. If you are willing to take on the challenge, pick the recorded supernatural event of your choice.

They have to be handled on a one by one basis. The Bible is too diverse of document to create one global standard independent of the section involved.

"Are you denying God made natural laws, laws that govern the motion of the planets, the interactions of molecules, etc? Creation acts in very predictable ways. God set up Laws of Nature. We can determine these laws by studying His Creation."

No, and you're missing the point, deliberate I suspect.

If I am missing your point, could you tell me what it is?

"It is not a mere matter of interpretation. Interpretations have consequences. Consequences have measurable effects. We can look for these measurable effects to see if the consequences and therefore the interpretation are right. True interpretations cannot have false consequences."

And every part of the process is affected by ones perception of origins.

The scientific method can overcome people's preconceptions and has done so on many occasions. Quantum mechanics, plate techtonics, ether, and phlogiston are all examples where the scientific consensus was shattered. If science was so dependent on the perceptions of individuals, this could not happen.

"You could not tell how it was multiplied or even that it was multiplied, but you could tell it was bread."

And all that you can tell about the universe, is that it is the universe, and that God created it.



"In the same way, we can't know how God created the Universe, but the Universe is made up of matter and we know how matter acts."

Well, explain gravity then, why does matter act in that way? Sense you know how it acts.

To first order, it obeys F = G M m / r^2. It's more complicated than that, but getting into general relativity requires tensors and other stuff beyond my understanding and probably the understanding of most here. The point is that we know how the forces of nature behave for the most part.

"Just as one can trace the path of a baseball back to the person who threw it, we can trace the history of the Universe to the time God created it."

No, you cannot. Two completely deferent things, one can be observed, the other cannot.

Unless..., do you have a time travel machine to trace with?

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

There is no difference. I can trace a ball's trajectory back to the person who threw it. I don't have to see the person throw it to know where it came from. The military did this to find where the enemy artillery was firing from. They didn't go around saying "We can't figure out where it came from unless we had a time machine." Foresics does the same thing, reconstructing events based on the effects of these events.

 

[GodSaves]

Genesis is a collection of myths. Furthermore, it is a collection of myths borrrowed from surrounding cultures and modified. It draws from both Egyptian and Babylonian/Sumerian myths but changes them in order to show how God is different from the gods of other cultures. Natural forces deified by other cultures are eplicitly treated as creations of God. The Egyptian idea that knowledge of moral order brought power is attacked.

Is it your intention to state that Genesis is not from God, but rather pagan men? This would be equating God's Word with that of pagan men. For me this would explain why you believe in evolution.

God Bless