The challenge for Theistic Evolutionists

[Aman777]

Genesis contains a full genealogy back to Adam. It was always considered literal history by the Jews. It was considered literal history by other writers of the bible and even Jesus himself. It is written in literal Hebrew style.

Nothing at all indicates it was "just a story".

Assyrian, the Hebrew usage of YOM which includes a sun up and sun down, (God was the light on those first few days) always means 24 hours. There is really nothing else to refute about it.

Dear ED, What about this?

yowm
Pronunciation
yōm (Key)

Part of Speech
masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)
From an unused root meaning to be hot

TWOT Reference

852​

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. 
   
   day, time, year
   1. day (as opposed to night)
   2. 
      
      day (24 hour period)
      1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
      2. 
         
         as a division of time
         1. a working day, a day's journey
   3. days, lifetime (pl.)
   4. time, period (general)
   5. year
   6. 
      
      temporal references
      1. today
      2. yesterday
      3. tomorrow

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 2287
AV — day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44


The Hebrew meaning for the word Day is a period of time, and NOT just 12 or 24 hours nor just evening and morning. God's use of the Hebrew words reveals much which makes little sense to those who don't study them. A good example is the Scriptural Fact that the Seventh Day does NOT have an evening, showing that it is Eternity. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[AV1611VET]

Not until Genesis 5. Ever notice how Gen. 5 has all the hallmarks of an introductory chapter, and Genesis 1-4 has no connection at all to the rest of the book beyond that point?

Almost as if they were tacked on at some later point...

Kinda reminds you of colophons; doesn't it, professor of literature?

 

[AV1611VET]

day, time, year

1. day (as opposed to night)
2. day (24 hour period)
3. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

SOURCE

 

[KWCrazy]

Actually, the day wasn't even 24 hours. The earth's rotation is slowing. Atomic clocks put the rate of slowing at 1.7 milliseconds per decade which isn't much, but the earth is slowing slightly. According to our relationship with the stars we currently rotate every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Genesis contains a full genealogy back to Adam. It was always considered literal history by the Jews. It was considered literal history by other writers of the bible and even Jesus himself. It is written in literal Hebrew style.

Nothing at all indicates it was "just a story".

...

Actually, the fact that Genesis is a story in the bible indicates it is "just a story". Just like stories about Goldilocks and the Three Bears, or Santa Claus.

 

[KWCrazy]

Actually, the fact that Genesis is a story in the bible indicates it is "just a story". Just like stories about Goldilocks and the Three Bears, or Santa Claus.

The fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament and that several incidents were cited by Jesus Christ as actual events; coupled with the fact that the three fables you mentioned were all created as works of fiction indicates that your post is either a statement rooted in ignorance or an intentional falsehood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament and that several incidents were cited by Jesus Christ as actual events; coupled with the fact that the three fables you mentioned were all created as works of fiction indicates that your post is either a statement rooted in ignorance or an intentional falsehood.

Genesis was created as a work of fiction too. All that your supposed 200 times of being referenced, and I would like to see some support of that claim, does is to show that it was a very popular work of fiction. That is all.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament and that several incidents were cited by Jesus Christ as actual events; coupled with the fact that the three fables you mentioned were all created as works of fiction indicates that your post is either a statement rooted in ignorance or an intentional falsehood.

How does any of that prove that Genesis is anything more than a story?

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer have been referenced millions of times. According to your logic that makes Rudolph far more real than Genesis.

 

[Aman777]

The fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament and that several incidents were cited by Jesus Christ as actual events; coupled with the fact that the three fables you mentioned were all created as works of fiction indicates that your post is either a statement rooted in ignorance or an intentional falsehood.

Dear KWCrazy, Amen. ALL of the Bible refers BACK to the events of God's 7 Days. The entire 7 Day History of the Creation, including future events, is listed in the FIRST 34 verses of Genesis. The first 3 verses of Genesis 2 tells us of a FUTURE time when God rests from ALL of His work of creating. God continues to work today to create new Christians in Christ.

God rests or ceases to Create on the 7th Day which has NO ending and NO evening, for it is Eternity. He rests because His perfect Heaven is already fillled with ALL of the host of heaven, which includes ALL Christians. Genesis 2:1 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[KWCrazy]

How does any of that prove that Genesis actually happened?

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer have been referenced millions of times. According to your logic that makes Rudolph far more real than Genesis.

Every once in a while I come across someone with so little to say that their opinions have absolutely no value. When I do, I simplify things and use the ignore function. You aren't here for serious discussion, only to act like an adolescent. Goodbye.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Every once in a while I come across someone with so little to say that their opinions have absolutely no value. When I do, I simplify things and use the ignore function. You aren't here for serious discussion, only to act like an adolescent. Goodbye.

Yeah, disproving your logic is an adolescent act. It's just that easy.

 

[Sayre]

Genesis contains a full genealogy back to Adam. It was always considered literal history by the Jews. It was considered literal history by other writers of the bible and even Jesus himself. It is written in literal Hebrew style.

This is such rubbish I don't know where to start. Genealogies have a particular purpose in the OT, and it isn't always to convey history. Usually it is to make a point (a theological point ) that Jesus is the second Adam, or that Jesus was from a particular line (Davidic, Judah), or to claim rights to the priesthood, etc. The fact that you read a genealogy in the bible doesn't necessarily mean that it was a literal genealogy. I suggest you read a book on history in the ANE, because they all recorded history with a vastly different intent to what we do now. If you have a look at the names of the people in the genealogies between Adam and Abraham, and interpret what the names of the people mean, you will see that even their names spell out a story that is revealed through time. Genesis 1-11 is a series of stories glued together through an overarching genealogy that is itself a theological story. It ain't literal, but that doesn't mean it has no value.

The Jews knew this too, and appreciated that structure in hebraic writing was there for didactic purposes. It had meaning and was not to be ignored. Given this, Genesis was NOT considered literal history by all Jews. That is a pile of baloney and makes me quite distrustful of anything else you have to say. Anyone with a few hours of reading under their belt understands the diversity of interpretations the Jews had on Genesis. In addition, the early church fathers, many of them Jewish, also shared a non literal interpretation of Genesis.

Jesus was also a Jew and trained in the scriptures. I suspect He knew this too. Jesus did quote (it seems) from the early chapters of Genesis. But this doesn't make the early chapters of Genesis literal. Jesus also used metaphors and parables. Just like when I teach my children about the boy who cried wolf, and we later discuss the story and what the boy did wrong. My reference to the boy doesn't mean I consider the story literal, but that talking about the boy allows me to make a didactic point. Can you justify to me that Jesus quoting something automatically implies that the thing quoted is physical-literal? If not, I am not going to change my understanding.

Finally, it is NOT written in literal Hebrew style. The structure of writing in Hebrew means as much as the words written. The structure in Genesis 1 is paired - have a look at the framework hypothesis. You cannot see a framework so strongly in Genesis 1 and then tell me that it is literal, or that we should read it the same way we read a modern science textbook.

Do you think the ancients were dumb? Do you think they would not notice that in the first two chapters of their holy book, there are (if read literally) glaring contradictions? Don't you think they would have edited those errors out, or hidden them, or deleted one of the two creation stories? They weren't dumb people, and nor were the later redactors who came along to glue Genesis together into one story. There are two creation accounts there precisely because they aren't literal and each story tells and important tale about the Hebraic God and how He interacts with His people.

What really really gets on my goat about young earth creationists is that they do damage to the text of Genesis. Genesis as properly understood is a fascinating book. But to force it into a modern mold and pretend it isn't infused with Hebraic literary styles, poetry, mythicism, ANE cosmology, written and edited with human hands, is to take a great piece of ancient art and claim it's a graph.

Nothing at all indicates it was "just a story".

Yeah... no.

Your ignorance of the subject matter is glaringly obvious.

 

[Sayre]

The fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament and that several incidents were cited by Jesus Christ as actual events; coupled with the fact that the three fables you mentioned were all created as works of fiction indicates that your post is either a statement rooted in ignorance or an intentional falsehood.

Where did Jesus say "these stories were actual events"? He referenced them, yes, but I reference stories to make didactic points all the time.

It is like a modern person writing down in their diary that they read the boy who cried wolf to their children, and then someone digging up the diary a few thousand years later and debating with his neighbour about the colour of the wolf's eyes, claiming that the parent must have taken the story literally. That is how silly this seems to me.

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you think the ancients were dumb? Do you think they would not notice that in the first two chapters of their holy book, there are (if read literally) glaring contradictions? Don't you think they would have edited those errors out, or hidden them, or deleted one of the two creation stories?

If you learn nothing else in the coming year, learn that there are not two creation stories. Despite a constant barrage of falsehoods by atheists and others, Genesis two is NOT a creation account. It begins by stating: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that He had done." If something begins by stating that the creation had been completed, then how could it be a creation story? The fact is that Genesis two tells the story of the first man and woman on the newly created earth. It does not list the sequence of creation or in any way describe the events of creation. It DOES make some specific statements about certain details, but NOTHING in Genesis two in any way contradicts Genesis one.

They weren't dumb people, and nor were the later redactors who came along to glue Genesis together into one story.

That would be Moses, who wrote what was revealed to him by God.

What really really gets on my goat about young earth creationists is that they do damage to the text of Genesis.

Wait. Who is it that claims Genesis is nothing but mythology or perhaps parables which are not to be believed? That is certainly not the YEC, for whom the Bible is the literal word of God.

Genesis as properly understood is a fascinating book. But to force it into a modern mold and pretend it isn't infused with Hebraic literary styles, poetry, mythicism, ANE cosmology, written and edited with human hands, is to take a great piece of ancient art and claim it's a graph.

Jesus believed in the Scriptures as written, and declared them to be accurate. You claim that Genesis is only the stories of man. One of you is NOT telling the truth. Sorry, I believe that person is you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is such rubbish I don't know where to start. It ain't literal, but that doesn't mean it has no value.

Rubbish...now that doesn't seem to loving to say to a fellow Christian when that is what your goal was, now is it? Just sayin...

First of all, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are very different writings and are written for different views of the creation. I think to claim that "it ain't literal" is going outside of your knowledge and certainly has no evidence to support it. You may believe it is not literal and that of course is your interpretation and you have every right to believe what you do. However, to point blank claim that it is not literal is only based on your interpretation or opinion and is no more accurate than those of us who claim we feel it to be literal.

The Jews knew this too, and appreciated that structure in hebraic writing was there for didactic purposes. It had meaning and was not to be ignored. Given this, Genesis was NOT considered literal history by all Jews. That is a pile of baloney and makes me quite distrustful of anything else you have to say. Anyone with a few hours of reading under their belt understands the diversity of interpretations the Jews had on Genesis. In addition, the early church fathers, many of them Jewish, also shared a non literal interpretation of Genesis.

I find it interesting that you claim that not all Jews considered it literal when in fact, Jews and Christians are in the same boat...we are reading a history of the universe written by those who claim it is a literal rendering of the history of the universe. Do we accept that or do we question it? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are written in different structures to distinguish between the creation of man and the creation of the spiritual man. Now of course this is my interpretation, my view and so it is only to be viewed in that way. However, I know that Jesus felt that Genesis 1 was a correct literal view of Creation and I go with Him. Both are literal in that Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the universe in steps and actions taken. Genesis 2 speaks of the spiritual birth of man from mankind.

Genesis chapter 2:1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

As you see in Genesis 2 all is done. Everything was finished but then it goes on and talks about the creation of the Spiritual man.

7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Jesus was also a Jew and trained in the scriptures. I suspect He knew this too. Jesus did quote (it seems) from the early chapters of Genesis. But this doesn't make the early chapters of Genesis literal. Jesus also used metaphors and parables.

Jesus was there when the universe was made. If it were not so He would have said, IMHO.

Finally, it is NOT written in literal Hebrew style. The structure of writing in Hebrew means as much as the words written. The structure in Genesis 1 is paired - have a look at the framework hypothesis. You cannot see a framework so strongly in Genesis 1 and then tell me that it is literal, or that we should read it the same way we read a modern science textbook.

Why would it put it in that manner? IF it were not a step by step type of detail of the process why make it appear to be that way?

Do you think the ancients were dumb? Do you think they would not notice that in the first two chapters of their holy book, there are (if read literally) glaring contradictions?

There ya go, why would they not find that odd if it were not a literal interpretation in both chapters? It is not contradictions but different viewpoints of the Creation of man and mankind.

Don't you think they would have edited those errors out, or hidden them, or deleted one of the two creation stories?

Exactly. But that is not due in my opinion to a lack of literal interpretation but of actual literal interpretations of two different views... the natural and the supernatural spiritual birth of man.

They weren't dumb people, and nor were the later redactors who came along to glue Genesis together into one story. There are two creation accounts there precisely because they aren't literal and each story tells and important tale about the Hebraic God and how He interacts with His people.

Which would be?

What really really gets on my goat about young earth creationists is that they do damage to the text of Genesis. Genesis as properly understood is a fascinating book. But to force it into a modern mold and pretend it isn't infused with Hebraic literary styles, poetry, mythicism, ANE cosmology, written and edited with human hands, is to take a great piece of ancient art and claim it's a graph.

While I agree that YEC is at times damaging to the spreading of the gospel of Christ, it isn't due to a literal reading that causes the problems.

Your ignorance of the subject matter is glaringly obvious.

I have a hard time remembering when seeing this that you are a fellow Christian wishing only to love creationists. It could be just me but....

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you learn nothing else in the coming year, learn that there are not two creation stories. Despite a constant barrage of falsehoods by atheists and others, Genesis two is NOT a creation account. It begins by stating: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that He had done." If something begins by stating that the creation had been completed, then how could it be a creation story? The fact is that Genesis two tells the story of the first man and woman on the newly created earth. It does not list the sequence of creation or in any way describe the events of creation. It DOES make some specific statements about certain details, but NOTHING in Genesis two in any way contradicts Genesis one.

That would be Moses, who wrote what was revealed to him by God.

Wait. Who is it that claims Genesis is nothing but mythology or perhaps parables which are not to be believed? That is certainly not the YEC, for whom the Bible is the literal word of God.

Jesus believed in the Scriptures as written, and declared them to be accurate. You claim that Genesis is only the stories of man. One of you is NOT telling the truth. Sorry, I believe that person is you.

We must have been writing at the same time.

 

[KWCrazy]

Where did Jesus say "these stories were actual events"? He referenced them, yes, but I reference stories to make didactic points all the time.

Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ This means refers to Adam and Eve; real people created by God; not evolved from anything.

Luke 11:51 "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." This demonstrates that Cain and Able were real people, just like Adam and Eve.

John 5:45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” Moses wrote the Torah, a book which you call a man made work of fiction. As Jesus said in His own words, "Since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" You're the one rejecting the word of God, not I and not any YEC.

In Exodus 20:11, God Himself wrote on a stone tablet, "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." These are the words of the Creator, whom you do not believe created the world as He said.

Jesus affirmed all that was written in the Old Testament, INCLUDING the Great Flood (he called Noah by name), manna from heaven, the Exodus, the story of Lot, the miracles of Elijah and Jonah in the belly of the great fish (whale?).

It's not the YEC who deny the Scriptures, it's you.

 

[EternalDragon]

What really gets my goat about young earth creationists is that they do damage to the text of Genesis. Genesis as properly understood is a fascinating book. But to force it into a modern mold and pretend it isn't infused with Hebraic literary styles, poetry, mythicism, ANE cosmology, written and edited with human hands, is to take a great piece of ancient art and claim it's a graph.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'll stick with Jesus' opinion of the books of Moses.

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is such rubbish I don't know where to start.

Then start with the NT.

Luke 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luke 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Jude 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Genealogies have a particular purpose in the OT, and it isn't always to convey history. Usually it is to make a point (a theological point ) that Jesus is the second Adam,

Try "last Adam."

 

[Sayre]

If you learn nothing else in the coming year, learn that there are not two creation stories. Despite a constant barrage of falsehoods by atheists and others, Genesis two is NOT a creation account.

Is this where you play a semantic game and define “creation account” as “the literary style of Genesis 1”?

Let's have a look at what happens in Genesis 2.

Verse 7 – God is the Creator of man
Verse 9 – God is the Creator of plants
Verse 22 – God is the Creator the woman

Genesis 2 is clearly portrayiing God as the Creator. If that isn't a “creation account” then what on earth IS a creation account?

It is clear that the focus of the accounts are different – Genesis 2 is looking at creation as it relates to man, but differing focus doesn't mean they aren't creation accounts.

What is your definition of a creation account?

It begins by stating: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that He had done." If something begins by stating that the creation had been completed, then how could it be a creation story?

You may be confused. When people talk about the creation account of Genesis 2, they refer to the passages that begin with Gen 2:4. The chapter breaks are not part of the originals, they were added much later, and the first chapter break is in the wrong spot. Versus 1—3 of Chapter 2 belong to Chapter 1 as a summary.

The fact is that Genesis two tells the story of the first man and woman on the newly created earth. It does not list the sequence of creation or in any way describe the events of creation.

Genesis 2 does have a sequence of events.

4[bless and do not curse]This[bless and do not curse]is[bless and do not curse]the history[a][bless and do not curse]of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the[bless and do not curse]LordGod made the earth and the heavens,[bless and do not curse]5[bless and do not curse]before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the[bless and do not curse]Lord[bless and do not curse]God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and[bless and do not curse]there wasno man to till the ground;[bless and do not curse]6[bless and do not curse]but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7[bless and do not curse]And the[bless and do not curse]Lord[bless and do not curse]God formed man[bless and do not curse]of[bless and do not curse]the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

See? Man, then plants. A sequence! Ta da!

It DOES make some specific statements about certain details, but NOTHING in Genesis two in any way contradicts Genesis one.

Genesis 1 has man created after the plants. Genesis 2 has man created before the plants.
Genesis 1 has woman created at the same time as man. Genesis 2 has woman created after man.

That would be Moses, who wrote what was revealed to him by God.

I only need to point to the passages in Deuteronomy that describe Moses death and burial to prove that he can't have been the sole author. I point to scholarly research to demonstrate substantial evidence that he was one of many authors (if he was an author at all), and that there were multiple redactors / editors who put the Torah together.

I don't know why fundamentalists want to debate this point? Who cares who wrote the bible? If you believe in the inspiration of Scripture then the author and redactor / editor doesn't matter.

Your view of inspiration seems to be that of dictation and that is a very fundamentalist view. It is fairly clear that the character and background of each writer comes through in the various books they contribute to the bible... why would God dictate such “flavoured” writings? Why would God dictate a creation account that is heavily steeped in ancient near east cosmology?

Wait. Who is it that claims Genesis is nothing but mythology or perhaps parables which are not to be believed? That is certainly not the YEC, for whom the Bible is the literal word of God.

Whoa up there buddy. Your view of what is “to be believed” is a bit off skew. Jesus spoke in parables. Are those parables “not to be believed” just because parables are not literal? CS Lewis spoke about “true myth” and the fact that allegory and mythology can be used as vehicles to deliver truth. I believe Genesis, and that Genesis uses creation accounts as a vehicle to deliver theology (a foreshadowing of redemption, the doctrine of sin, theology proper).

In essence, “the bible is true, and some of it actually happened”. Something doesn't have to be literal in order to be the Word of God. In what sense are the Psalms true, since they are poetry? Poetry is full of poetic devices such as hyperbole and repetition. Do those poetic devices render the passages untrue? In what sense are the wisdom passages true? In what sense are the parables true? I think it is time to acknowledge that scientific wooden literalism is not the only type of literature that can convey truth.

Jesus believed in the Scriptures as written, and declared them to be accurate. You claim that Genesis is only the stories of man. One of you is NOT telling the truth. Sorry, I believe that person is you.

Jesus believing in the Scriptures does not necessarily tell us what kind of literature He believed Genesis to be. Jesus simply declared them “truth”, nowhere does He declare them “literal in the scientific western sense”.