What Scriptures support Evolution?

[Mallon]

The Holy Spirit and common sense.

Having taught English I can tell you that that position is not logical. Any good student of the English language can tell the difference between prose/poetry and literal expressions.

gluadys is an English teacher here, also, and she would disagree. Besides, the Bible wasn't written in English, so I trust that a Hebrew scholar would be better able to interpret the genre of Genesis than an English scholar.

Why therefore, would we conclude that there is any difference between the history found in the details describing the six day creation, or the Noahic flood, as compared with building of Moses tabernacle or the details in the construction of the temple of Solomon? Nowhere in scripture, including the New Testament, is there a hint that any of those accounts are anything less than literal.

Except the parts where Gen 1 and 2 disagree. Then they can't both be literal.

The Jews thought of it all is literal and said so.

The Jews also thought the earth was flat and covered by a big solid dome in the sky, and said so in both the OT and Talmud. Do you side with the Jews there, too?

But compare Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

with;

I Kings 6;1 "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD."

There is no difference in the linguisitic expressions of the two different accounts that were many centuries apart.

So you believe there are literal windows in the heavens? Or are you trying to use what is obviously metaphor to argue for the literal-ness of the Genesis passage you cited here?

 

[Clockstopper]

gluadys is an English teacher here, also, and she would disagree. Besides, the Bible wasn't written in English, so I trust that a Hebrew scholar would be better able to interpret the genre of Genesis than an English scholar.

It doesn't matter what 'gluadys' says about it. The belief that Genesis speaks of a literal six day creation and that Noah's flood was literal, world-wide destruction of the human race is at least 3 milleniums old and biblical Christians believed in it until Darwin came along (1859). Some then compromised biblical truth and got off into serious error in the matter.

Except the parts where Gen 1 and 2 disagree. Then they can't both be literal

.

They don't disagree. You, like the atheist skeptics who came up with that foolish notion, are mistaken.

The Jews also thought the earth was flat and covered by a big solid dome in the sky, and said so in both the OT and Talmud. Do you side with the Jews there, too?

Quote the ancient Jews who said the earth was flat. Document it.

Secondly, where do you get the notion of the 'big solid dome'? From the perverted NIV translation of the Bible? Again, quote the ancient Jews on this matter. If you can come up with such documentation then it is probably a reference to what some think was a sphere is ice that covered the earth before the flood of Noah, which would have blocked out harmful UV rays and given occasion for the longevity of human life (Genesis 5 & 10). If that was the 'firmament' spoken of in Genesis one I can handle that.

So you believe there are literal windows in the heavens? Or are you trying to use what is obviously metaphor to argue for the literal-ness of the Genesis passage you cited here?

And what, pray tell, is a 'literal window'? Define it. Secondly, what makes the window in your living room any more a 'window' than the one God describes as in the sky above? I thought it was the Holy Spirit that assigns what reality is and not skeptics like you.

Your ill-fated attempt to escape the clear-cut comparison between the history described in Genesis 7 and I Kings 6 is duly noted.

Tell me something, Mr. Mallon; When a modern announcer of an international event says on television, :'These athletes come from the four corners of the earth to compete in this great contest'...does that mean that he believes that the earth is flat, has four corners, and that he is trying to persuade his listeners of such a thing? Of course not. It is UNDERSTOOD that he is speaking of the four directions of the world: north, east, south, & west.

The belief in evolution is not justified by either scripture nor science.

 

[Clockstopper]

Not quite sure what you're taking issue with, here. My original response to kedata was in reaction to his conflating "creation" with "fiat creation". Do you believe the two to be synonymous? Do you believe that God can only create miraculously, and not naturally?

He does both but the original creation of the world and life in it was all supernatural; every bit of it. Ex-nihilo.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:3

I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24

 

[Mallon]

It doesn't matter what 'gluadys' says about it.

If it doesn't matter what an English teacher says about it, then why did you bring up the fact that you're an English teacher?

The belief that Genesis speaks of a literal six day creation and that Noah's flood was literal, world-wide destruction of the human race is at least 3 milleniums old and biblical Christians believed in it until Darwin came along (1859). Some then compromised biblical truth and got off into serious error in the matter.

Actually, many Christian and Jewish church fathers did not interpret the Genesis creation accounts as historical. These include Augustine, Origen, Philo, Maimonides, Iranaeus, etc. So allegorical interpretations were around long before Darwin.

They don't disagree. You, like the atheist skeptics who came up with that foolish notion, are mistaken.

Sure they disagree. The orders of creation are completely different. For example, in Gen 1, all the birds are created before Adam, and in Gen 2, all the birds are created after Adam. Therefore, both accounts can't be literal. Therefore, at least one of them must be allegorical.

Quote the ancient Jews who said the earth was flat. Document it.

It's right in the Bible: Job 38:13-14, Isaiah 40:22, Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Psalm 19:4 and 104:2 all describe a flat earth. None of these passages make sense if a spherical earth is assumed.

Secondly, where do you get the notion of the 'big solid dome'?

Again, from the Bible itself. The literal meaning of the word 'firmament' is 'hammered metal' (hence the English word 'firm'). The Bible often compares the firmament to a tent that covers the earth (e.g., in the psalms), and Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22 both tell us that the firmament is solid and crystalline.

Again, quote the ancient Jews on this matter. If you can come up with such documentation then it is probably a reference to what some think was a sphere is ice that covered the earth before the flood of Noah, which would have blocked out harmful UV rays and given occasion for the longevity of human life (Genesis 5 & 10). If that was the 'firmament' spoken of in Genesis one I can handle that.

Except David tells us that the firmament was still in place after the Flood, so that interpretation isn't biblical. Clearly, the Hebrews believed the firmament to be a big, solid dome above the earth that is still in place today. Their science was an ancient one, which God accommodated in His inspiration of the Scriptures.

And what, pray tell, is a 'literal window'? Define it. Secondly, what makes the window in your living room any more a 'window' than the one God describes as in the sky above? I thought it was the Holy Spirit that assigns what reality is and not skeptics like you.

Why are you so reluctant to admit that the Bible contains metaphorical imagery? Or ancient science, even? Does it offend some literalist/concordist assumption you bring to the Bible? If so, maybe your assumptions should be reexamined. The Bible isn't a science textbook, nor does it ever claim to be. Rather, it claims to be useful for teaching/rebuking/training in righteousness. None of these things relate to science.

Tell me something, Mr. Mallon; When a modern announcer of an international event says on television, :'These athletes come from the four corners of the earth to compete in this great contest'...does that mean that he believes that the earth is flat, has four corners, and that he is trying to persuade his listeners of such a thing? Of course not. It is UNDERSTOOD that he is speaking of the four directions of the world: north, east, south, & west.

But the Bible's description of a flat earth doesn't hinge on its use of the phrase 'four corners of the earth', as I've shown.

 

[Mallon]

He does both but the original creation of the world and life in it was all supernatural; every bit of it. Ex-nihilo.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:3

I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24

If the Bible determines what you believe about science, then surely you also believe that the earth is flat and covered by a solid, crystalline dome. Right? If not, why are you selective about which parts of the Bible's science to accept and which to reject?

 

[Clockstopper]

If it doesn't matter what an English teacher says about it, then why did you bring up the fact that you're an English teacher?

Why don't think before you make such statements? I said......it doesn't matter what glad, uh, whatever says about it, especially in light of the fact that believers have always believed in the six day creation of the world.

Actually, many Christian and Jewish church fathers did not interpret the Genesis creation accounts as historical. These include Augustine, Origen, Philo, Maimonides, Iranaeus, etc. So allegorical interpretations were around long before Darwin.

My statement does not preclude the fact that there were heretics that arose within the church from the very first century.This was prophesied and expected. But if you wish to believe the likes of that heretic Origin and that Roman Catholic errorist Augustine then be my guest. The real truth is that the majority of Christian scholars and teachers believed in the six day creation;

(Note: Please check out 'Creationism in the Early Church, Chapter 3. I do not have the 50 post requirement to give you the web address. Sorry)


As you can see, the majority of the church fathers believed in the six days of creation, only four did not, and the rest did not make definitive statements about it that survived unto our day. So you are wrong. Not only so but not one of them, including Origen believed that the world was older than 10,000 yrs. So you are very wrong.

Sure they disagree. The orders of creation are completely different. For example, in Gen 1, all the birds are created before Adam, and in Gen 2, all the birds are created after Adam. Therefore, both accounts can't be literal. Therefore, at least one of them must be allegorical.

No, they DO NOT disagree. Your opinion in this matter is not authoritative as was/is that of Paul who said all scripture is inspired; David who said God's Word is preserved; and that of the Lord Jesus who said, 'the scripture cannot be broken'. It is your position which is in error and not God's Word.

The second chapter is merely a restatement of the creation spoken of in chapter one but not mentioned in the same order. Do you really think that Moses was stupid? For him to give one order in the 1st chapter and a completely different one in the very next chapter? You seem to have so little respect for scripture. You trust Darwin but not the inspired writer of scripture for the truth about creation? Shame on you.

It's right in the Bible: Job 38:13-14, Isaiah 40:22, Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Psalm 19:4 and 104:2 all describe a flat earth. None of these passages make sense if a spherical earth is assumed.

Is this some kind of joke? Not one of those passages teach a flat earth. Not one. Take for instance the statement in vs 14 of Job 38. Have you seriously never seen the variety of ancient seals and the many shapes they were made of?

(Note: (1) check out - Ancient Texts Relating to the Bible: El-Kerak. (2) check out - Cylinder seal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The temptation of Jesus by Satan in Matt. 4:8 was a supernatural occurrence. Do you think that it was impossible for the prince of darkness to show him all the kingdoms of the world, i.e. in a vision?

Again, from the Bible itself. The literal meaning of the word 'firmament' is 'hammered metal' (hence the English word 'firm'). The Bible often compares the firmament to a tent that covers the earth (e.g., in the psalms), and Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22 both tell us that the firmament is solid and crystalline.

And? I answered this one. I believe that is probably the case...before the flood. My timing for the duration of its existence might not be exact however.

Except David tells us that the firmament was still in place after the Flood, so that interpretation isn't biblical. Clearly, the Hebrews believed the firmament to be a big, solid dome above the earth that is still in place today. Their science was an ancient one, which God accommodated in His inspiration of the Scriptures.

Excuse me, my erring counterpart: But Genesis speaks of more than one firmament AND the physical content/makeup has almost certainly changed since creation. That the firmament still existed after the flood is not in question. Just when & how it changed we do not know. The scriptures are not wrong. You are.

Why are you so reluctant to admit that the Bible contains metaphorical imagery?

I don't, where it is truly metaphorical. But the little bit of metaphorical wording in Genesis does not change the literal or historical character of that incredible book.

You avoided my question about the window definition. Why is the glass framed objects in your living room defined as a 'window' but the sky that God calls a 'window' is not? Tell us and stop avoiding the issue.

Why are you so reluctant to believe that Genesis is historical...even though the New Testament tells us so clearly that it is?

For instance. Genesis records the first seven names from Adam to Enoch. The account in Chronicles lists the very same seven in the family lineages of Israel, and Enoch is seventh there also. THEN we find in Jude that Enoch is the seventh from Adam; concluding that the account is both historical and literal and therefore legitimate. These names are all in the family tree of the Lord Jesus Christ and they MUST be accurate for any rightful/lawful claim as heir to the throne of David.

Or ancient science, even? Does it offend some literalist/concordist assumption you bring to the Bible? If so, maybe your assumptions should be reexamined.

I'm not giving you assumptions. I am giving you facts.

The Bible isn't a science textbook, nor does it ever claim to be. Rather, it claims to be useful for teaching/rebuking/training in righteousness. None of these things relate to science.

Says you. But you are wrong. The Bible may not be a history book but what it says about history, including Genesis, is correct. It may not be a science book but what it says touching scientific themes is correct, even in the metphorical language it uses. Your position that scripture is in error but Darwinism is the truth about origins is absolutely horrifying.

But the Bible's description of a flat earth doesn't hinge on its use of the phrase 'four corners of the earth', as I've shown.

You haven't shown anything. You are in error on every single point.

I am not going to continue debating you on this matter, Mr. Mallon, whoever you are, because I have read enough of your posts to conclude that you are not honest in your assessments of scripture. Like most of those who share your views you refuse to take matters to the bottom line and therefore you end up with error.

I will only answer you again if I see you deliberately attempting to poison some inquiring searcher after the truth in the matter of creation.

 

[gluadys]

The Holy Spirit and common sense.

Having taught English I can tell you that that position is not logical. Any good student of the English language can tell the difference between prose/poetry and literal expressions.

Having also taught English, I know any good student of the English language is aware that it is not always easy to tell prose from poetry. Are "found poems" prose or poetry, for example? What makes free verse poetry rather than prose?

And they would also know that "literal" does not refer to the poetry/prose distinction.

 

[Jase]

It is not true that man is an animal. The Bible says both man and animals came from the dust of the earth, in direct special (supernatural) creation, and evolution if found nowhere in the Word. We are either going to trust God and His Word in the matter or Darwin and his followers.

Man most certainly is an animal. Why does that bother you? The Bible is not science textbook.

 

[Jase]

Ah, but why should we take that any more literally than the six day creation belief, Mr. Mallon? Maybe God meant that the earth itself is the womb and He impregnated the earth with seeds from space... a la panspermia. Maybe God is speaking of the womb as the entire universe and the E.T.'s (i.e. 2001 a Space Odyssey) causes everything to happen.Why not? You can stretch it any way you want it once you leave the plain spoken expression as is seen in the Bible.

What plain spoken expression would that be? Since when is a Classical Hebrew oral song "plainly spoken"?

Do you realize how complicated Classical Hebrew is and how poorly it translates to English in many cases?

 

[Clockstopper]

Having also taught English, I know any good student of the English language is aware that it is not always easy to tell prose from poetry. Are "found poems" prose or poetry, for example? What makes free verse poetry rather than prose?

And they would also know that "literal" does not refer to the poetry/prose distinction.

Doesn't matter if you did teach English. You don't know what you're talking about.

Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!
Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope
The Lord's anointed temple, and stole thence
The life o' the building.
Macbeth Act II Scene III Lines 48-52

Any student of English that has read this knows very well that these words speak of the death (the literal death) of Macduff. Spoken in highly symbolic, yet clear language the murder is spoken of, Macduff is alluded to as 'The Lord's anointed temple, and his life ('the life o' the building) is snuffed out. How hard is that to figure out?

BUT, Genesis is not written this way. Not even close. The fact that there are metaphoric expressions in Genesis does not change the literal & historical content of the period of creation clear up to the time of Abraham, which by the way, is written in the same literal, historical sense.

The New Testament says so in many places.

You have no argument.

 

[Clockstopper]

Man most certainly is an animal. Why does that bother you? The Bible is not science textbook.

God's Word says otherwise and you are a prime example of one who has accepted lies.

"In the last days some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Paul told us.

Darwinism is one of those doctrines.

 

[Clockstopper]

What plain spoken expression would that be? Since when is a Classical Hebrew oral song "plainly spoken"?

Who told you that lie and why did you believe it?

Matt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Tell the readers, please; which of those two events that Jesus mentioned was not literal? Which one was not real history?

 

[Jase]

God's Word says otherwise and you are a prime example of one who has accepted lies.

"In the last days some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Paul told us.

Darwinism is one of those doctrines.

The Bible is not God's Word, Jesus is. Stop worshipping an idol.

 

[Assyrian]

Who told you that lie and why did you believe it?

Matt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Tell the readers, please; which of those two events that Jesus mentioned was not literal? Which one was not real history?

A more revealing point is that you seem to missing the hyperbole Jesus is using here. This is the same passage where Jesus said Matt 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! The scribes and Pharisees were not literally responsible for the death of Abel, which goes to show that literal and non literal may not be quite as easy to tell apart as you seem to think.

Welcome to the forum Clockstopper. I hope you enjoy you time here and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord.

 

[Clockstopper]

A more revealing point is that you seem to missing the hyperbole Jesus is using here. This is the same passage where Jesus said Matt 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! The scribes and Pharisees were not literally responsible for the death of Abel, which goes to show that literal and non literal may not be quite as easy to tell apart as you seem to think.

Welcome to the forum Clockstopper. I hope you enjoy you time here and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord.

Your words are empty whoever you are. I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand and the mental cheating you practice in defending Darwinism.

Is it not a less than honest conclusion to take two obviously historical events followed by a hyperbolic expression and then conclude therefore that what Jesus said did not in fact, amount to actual, literal occurrences in the past?

Don't come 'blessing' me out of one side of your mouth while placing doubt and unbelief in the hearts of the readers out of the other side of your mouth. That doesn't work with me.

I think I will refrain from responding to you and wait to see if there are honest seekers who really wish to know the truth about creation.

 

[Clockstopper]

The Bible is not God's Word, Jesus is. Stop worshipping an idol.

Oh, so I should trust your written word rather than God's written Word?

I get you.

Post someone else, please.

 

[Assyrian]

Your words are empty whoever you are. I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand and the mental cheating you practice in defending Darwinism.

Is it not a less than honest conclusion to take two obviously historical events followed by a hyperbolic expression and then conclude therefore that what Jesus said did not in fact, amount to actual, literal occurrences in the past?

Don't come 'blessing' me out of one side of your mouth while placing doubt and unbelief in the hearts of the readers out of the other side of your mouth. That doesn't work with me.

I think I will refrain from responding to you and wait to see if there are honest seekers who really wish to know the truth about creation.

Are you saying you noticed that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole here? People don't usually take a passage they know isn't speaking literal to argue for literalism. As for my welcome, you don't have to accept it if you don't want But if you are genuinely trying to teach the truth of God, perhaps you would be more convincing with a little less rudeness and arrogance. I don't mind that people associate this with Creationism, but it is sad to see such bitterness in the heart of fellow Christian. You are a Christian aren't you, not just pretending to be one for kicks or to give Christianity a bad name?

 

[Clockstopper]

Are you saying you noticed that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole here? People don't usually take a passage they know isn't speaking literal to argue for literalism. As for my welcome, you don't have to accept it if you don't want But if you are genuinely trying to teach the truth of God, perhaps you would be more convincing with a little less rudeness and arrogance. I don't mind that people associate this with Creationism, but it is sad to see such bitterness in the heart of fellow Christian. You are a Christian aren't you, not just pretending to be one for kicks or to give Christianity a bad name?

Oh, so you greet me with 'christian love' combined with error and then tear me down when I point out your errors. Nice going, O godly one. How typical of theistic evolutionists who can't stomach the truth.

I don't wish to argue with you. I won't.

 

[gluadys]

Doesn't matter if you did teach English. You don't know what you're talking about.

Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!
Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope
The Lord's anointed temple, and stole thence
The life o' the building.
Macbeth Act II Scene III Lines 48-52

Any student of English that has read this knows very well that these words speak of the death (the literal death) of Macduff. Spoken in highly symbolic, yet clear language the murder is spoken of, Macduff is alluded to as 'The Lord's anointed temple, and his life ('the life o' the building) is snuffed out. How hard is that to figure out?

IOW, as I said "literal" does not refer to the distinction between prose and poetry. For here, we have, in poetry, a literal reference to "a sacrilegious murder."

You will probably agree that the opposite is also often the case: that we have images, metaphors and other non-literal ways of speaking in prose passages.

For that matter, science itself is replete with metaphors and analogies from "Big Bang" to "gravitational attraction" to "natural selection". Likewise in history we have "the Dark Ages" "the Enlightenment" "the Holocaust" "the Iron Curtain" and so forth.

BUT, Genesis is not written this way. Not even close. The fact that there are metaphoric expressions in Genesis does not change the literal & historical content of the period of creation clear up to the time of Abraham, which by the way, is written in the same literal, historical sense.

The New Testament says so in many places.

You have no argument.

Now you are treating "literal" and "historical" as if they were synonyms. They are not.

Perhaps your real position is not that Genesis is literal, but that it is historical.

That is a different issue altogether. Even if Genesis were written in the most flowery of poetic phrases, it could still refer to a historically young earth, just as the poetry of Shakespeare referred to a historical murder.


One can also note, that the passage refers to a literal murder, whether or not it was also historical. As it happens, the murder did actually occur in history as well as in Shakespeare's play. But that is not implied in the literal reference to a murder embedded in the metaphors. IOW if the character was murdered in the play, but was not a historical character, the reference to his murder would still be literal in the context of the play. That is the word "murder" refers to a murder and is not a symbolic term meaning something else


Finally, no student of Shakespeare would take this passage as referring to MacDuff, who was not murdered, but rather the hero who killed MacBeth. The reference is to the murder of King Duncan. MacDuff is the one who speaks these lines. And that is why the murder is "sacrilegious"--because it was an anointed king who was murdered.

 

[Clockstopper]

IOW, as I said "literal" does not refer to the distinction between prose and poetry. For here, we have, in poetry, a literal reference to "a sacrilegious murder."

You will probably agree that the opposite is also often the case: that we have images, metaphors and other non-literal ways of speaking in prose passages.

For that matter, science itself is replete with metaphors and analogies from "Big Bang" to "gravitational attraction" to "natural selection". Likewise in history we have "the Dark Ages" "the Enlightenment" "the Holocaust" "the Iron Curtain" and so forth.

Beg pardon, it was Duncan. The phrase spoke of him. I am not beyond admitting a mistake. Yet the comparison I made holds true.

I don't see, however, how it will do any good to debate with you since your mind is closed to the six day creation that is taught by Moses in both Genesis one and in the Ten Commandments.

I will look for posters who are searching for answers and not those who are committed to error.