Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[OllieFranz]

where was he talking about the 7th day

He had not yet explicitly equated the "day" in which Adam (and the whole human race) dies with the seventh day of Creation when I posted the above, but it was the logical application of his statement as quoted in my post. And he apparently agrees with this assessment, in the post immediately proceeding yours.

 

[KWCrazy]

Originally Posted by OllieFranz

Well, what do you know? According to KW, the seventh day of Creation is not a 24 hour day. It is still going on more than 6000 years later, and will continue as long as descendants of Adam live mortal lives on this imperfect world. If he argues that the seventh day is not a literal 24 hour day, then why does he insist that the first six days must be?

where was he talking about the 7th day

Wow! It's amazing what people will deliberately lie about. No wonder I have him on ignore.

So I presumably said that the earth hasn't rotated since the seventh day of creation? What next? "KW saw Jesus working at Wal*Mart!"

 

[Lethe]

The people were divided by languages at the tower of Babel.

What did God mean when he said Adam would die if he ate the forbidden fruit? He sure didn't die. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17).

Adam did surely die. Death became assured the moment that he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He traded immortality for such knowledge, and because of his actions he brought death unto himself and his descendants. God never said "In the instant" he ate he would die immediately.

Who needs Babel to confuse languages when we have our very own KWcrazy torturing English to try to squeeze out of a plainly stated threat.

 

[Split Rock]

I think so and the references I double checked with believed so as well.

No, He said IN, not on. Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Death became a surety, though it was not immediate.

This is actually one of those times when the word day (yowm) does not mean a single day because it had no quantifier. God did not say Adam would die ON the day or that he would IMMEDIATELY die. The devil knew that, and told Eve she would not die when he ate it. She ate and didn't die, then Adam ate and didn't die. Death, however, was assured because man had been given only one law and still couldn't keep it.

I actually agree with you on at least some of your interpretation. But that is irrelevant to the point that I am making... and that is that the bible is not crystal clear on anything. If dad can interpret that "split" as the breaking up of pangea and the bible "clearly" states that Adam would die "in that day" and he didn't, this all points to ambiguity.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

I think so and the references I double checked with believed so as well.

No, He said IN, not on. Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Death became a surety, though it was not immediate.

This is actually one of those times when the word day (yowm) does not mean a single day because it had no quantifier. God did not say Adam would die ON the day or that he would IMMEDIATELY die. The devil knew that, and told Eve she would not die when he ate it. She ate and didn't die, then Adam ate and didn't die. Death, however, was assured because man had been given only one law and still couldn't keep it.
​

I actually agree with you on at least some of your interpretation. But that is irrelevant to the point that I am making... and that is that the bible is not crystal clear on anything. If dad can interpret that "split" as the breaking up of pangea and the bible "clearly" states that Adam would die "in that day" and he didn't, this all points to ambiguity.

I don't have time to take on the text ambiguity discussion today. But I just wanted to point out the complexity AND POTENTIAL TRAPS in terms of interpretation traps when ENGLISH BIBLE READERS grapple with translation issues like "in" verses "on". In Genesis 2:17 where the discussion is about "in the day you eat of it" *or* "on the day you eat of it", the Hebrew word is KI. And I forget where I saw it, but I had the following table in my notes on that verse:

{{Sorry if reformatting makes it unreadable. I am hoping it displays in nice clear columns. If it doesn't, I'll just summarize it as saying that KI has 7 meanings: because, if, when, rather, interrogatory question, that, & perhaps. Each of the seven is illustrated with a Torah example with its citation.}}

The Hebrew word >KI< has 7 meanings.
​

===========================================
​

MEANING: VERSE an Example Passage
======= ======== ==================================

BECAUSE: Gn18-15a Sarah denied laughing BECAUSE she was afraid
​

IF: Ex34-09a God walk with us;IF we sin you can forgive
WHEN: Dt32-03a WHEN I call the name of God, give Praise
RATHER: Dt15-08b Dont be miserly; RATHER be charitable
QUESTION: Dt29-15a Is being a relative,reason for not being payed?

THAT: Nu20-29c The congregation saw THAT Aaron died
PERHAPS: Ex23-05a PERHAPS youll see a donkey & desert it?No!
​

I just wanted to emphasize how interpretations argued from the ENGLISH Bible text can be risky because we can get impressions which have no basis in the original Hebrew.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

In posting that table of the SEVEN MEANINGS of the Hebrew word KI, I illustrated a Biblical concept which a surprising number of Christians tend to not only fail to embrace, they OUTRIGHT DISDAIN IT. [Example: AV16 condescendingly calls anyone citing the Hebrew or Greek texts of scripture a "tongues speaker".]

The Bible tells us that God gave His Church TEACHERS, those who are gifted and EQUIPPED to teach that which is not necessarily known by all believers. And that teaching takes place not only in Sunday School and Sunday morning sermons. I regularly benefit from those with the Holy Spirit empowered gifts of teaching and exhortation who speak through Bible commentaries, websites, Youtube videos, and audio recordings. Sometimes that teaching involves wise spiritual insights that I would have missed when reading the scriptures but it can also involve technical information about the original language or CULTURE of the period that I've been overlooking. KWcrazy likes to dismiss anything (and anyone) who disagrees with his cherished traditions by casually calling such ideas "the foolish wisdom of men" but the Bible is not so dismissive. But just as with the Pharisees of the Jesus' day, there are some who defy and deny ANYTHING which dares to disagree with their favorite traditions and man-made fantasies. [For example, KW and AV16 don't like the amazing evolutionary processes which God created to diversify and adapt life on earth to new environments, SO THEY ATTRIBUTE THOSE CREATIVE WORKS OF GOD TO SATAN. ]

Denying the works of God has long been a characteristic of false teachers. Some great advice I got from my Sunday School teacher growing up was to always read the particular chapter of the Book of Proverbs which corresponds to the day of the month. Years of that daily reading habit has been a CONSTANT REMINDER of how "the fool hates instruction" and "the mocker refuses knowledge". Indeed, two important factors which led me out of the "creation science" movement ---which under SOME leaders has produced cult-like organizations --- was (1) the blatant dishonesty of misleading quote-mines and false evidence/claims, and (2) the DENIAL and simply IGNORING repeated corrections of their factual errors. VerySincere writes about the same rampant phenomenon in the "creation science" world that I had experienced: the pseudo-science and discredited evidence that was published in the 1962 classic, THE GENESIS FLOOD (which launched the present creation science movement) is still used today---and the 50th anniversary edition of the book was published without any noticeable corrections! [One would have AT LEAST thought that the outdated science and citations AND ERRORS would be cleaned up. But because it is PROPAGANDA being preached to the already-loyal choir, sound evidence and honesty didn't matter!]



.

 

[KWCrazy]

I actually agree with you on at least some of your interpretation. But that is irrelevant to the point that I am making... and that is that the bible is not crystal clear on anything. If dad can interpret that "split" as the breaking up of pangea and the bible "clearly" states that Adam would die "in that day" and he didn't, this all points to ambiguity.

I didn't say it was clear on EVERYTHING, but in relation to the creation and the most important parts of the Bible it's very clear. "The evening and the morning" is very clear. "Fifteen cubits above the mountains" is also very clear. "Thou shalt not" leaves nothing to interpret. It isn't the things that are mysterious that bother people, it's the clear unambiguous statements that conflict with what they want to believe.

That said, the Revelation is heavily symbolic and very difficult to understand with a cursary reading. Since it is a description of the end times, it is intentionally vague and mysterious. The one thing you can take out of all of it is that you DON'T want to be there.

 

[Tellastory]

So is the claim simply rhetorical hyperbole for the sake of motivation.....

I cannot speak for all creationists, but I have seen the evolution theory turned a fellow classmate into not believing in Jesus Christ any more.

So let's address that.

What does the evolution theory does that makes one not believe any more?

#1) To think that God did not really mean what He has said.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

If the first day wasn't really the first day with an evening and a morning, then what else is not true?


1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

How does that not cause doubt about the word of His promise, especially after Jesus had vouched for the scriptures in reproving the Pharisees?

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

So what about this promise below?

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What? Will that not lead someone to doubt as to maybe it will take billions of years or even more since it took God that long to create them?

#2) Would believing in the evolution theory means that Adam was not responsible for bringing death into the world?

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

So what is the big deal with God in having any life & death before the Biblcal creation account if the central point of creation and the fall all centered on Christ defeating death for the last time?

As in... death can still come from elsewhere but not because of the origin of sin?

#3) Would it mean that Christ referencing the first marriage was not really the first marriage?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

If they believe that Adam & Eve was not the first couple but an eventual evolved couple or a symbolic representation of the origin of Israel's family tree regardless of the record of genealogy, is Christ's victory over sin & death really assured?

I can see why believers stop believing in Jesus Christ because the evolution theory makes Jesus a liar and a vain "god" with no assurances.

In spite of the fact that He has risen from the dead.

So fellow believers in Jesus Christ: are you really going to accept man's ability to measure time when God has matured His creation in numerous places in the Bible account of creation?

Like... how the speed of light cannot be the measuring stick on how old the universe is when God created the source of those lights in the heavens and filled in the gap with those lights to be governing the earth that day when He spoke it to be doing.

So you either believe in His words in what He has said or... you are leaving the door wide open for the devil to sow doubt in your fellow believer's ear by whispering "Did God really say that?".

Matthew 13:21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Romans 3:4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Like it or not, playing with theistic evolution will eventually lead a believer to stumble. The devil isn't going to let that opportunity go by when a believer is doubting God's word. The devil will make him doubt more & more until he just doesn't believe in God anymore, regardless of how "science" keeps updating and changing what they believe to be true of the evolution theory as proof that they are stumbling around in the dark.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I cannot speak for all creationists, but I have seen the evolution theory turned a fellow classmate into not believing in Jesus Christ any more.

And that's sad, because there's really no reason they should be at odds -- any conflict is in the mind of the believer.

So let's address that.

What does the evolution theory does that makes one not believe any more?

It may force a person to question their understanding of God -- and if they never came to the realization that their understanding of the infinite and almighty creator of the Universe may be finite and fallible to say the least, then it might be a bit too much for them to handle.

#1) To think that God did not really mean what He has said.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

If the first day wasn't really the first day with an evening and a morning, then what else is not true?

More importantly, what else has the believer taken as literal which may not be?

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

If you read this closely, it's "no lie is the truth" -- which really isn't as profound as it originally sounded.

How does that not cause doubt about the word of His promise, especially after Jesus had vouched for the scriptures in reproving the Pharisees?

Because some believers are unable/unwilling to consider that the fault is not in Jesus or in the scriptures, but in themselves.

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

So what about this promise below?

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What? Will that not lead someone to doubt as to maybe it will take billions of years or even more since it took God that long to create them?

So? What's a billion years to God? Who among us has the power to bind Him to our timetable?

If God wanted to create the world in six days, He could. If He wanted to create it in six minutes, He could. But if He wanted to do it over 4.5 billion years, why is that a problem?

#2) Would believing in the evolution theory means that Adam was not responsible for bringing death into the world?

Most likely -- but does that make death any less a problem? More to the point, does it make Jesus any less a solution?

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

So what is the big deal with God in having any life & death before the Biblcal creation account if the central point of creation and the fall all centered on Christ defeating death for the last time?

Well, even without evolution, this is still a problem -- Christ clearly did not defeat death for the last time, because last I checked, death is still very much a part of our world.

As in... death can still come from elsewhere but not because of the origin of sin?

Sure why not? If Christ was who he said he was, he can overcome death no matter where it came from.

#3) Would it mean that Christ referencing the first marriage was not really the first marriage?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Christ made references to the Creation stories, this is true; but his point was still valid even if those stories were less than literal -- after all, he also told parables, and nobody secure and mature in their faith honestly thinks those have to be literally true in order for his point to be made.

If they believe that Adam & Eve was not the first couple but an eventual evolved couple or a symbolic representation of the origin of Israel's family tree regardless of the record of genealogy, is Christ's victory over sin & death really assured?

I guess you'll need to take it on faith.

I can see why believers stop believing in Jesus Christ because the evolution theory makes Jesus a liar and a vain "god" with no assurances.

Or worse -- exposes your own vanity. Rather than consider the possibility that you've been misunderstanding the message, better to toss the baby out with the bathwater, right?

In spite of the fact that He has risen from the dead.

What does that have to do with anything? Christ rising from the dead doesn't guarantee you're correct.

So fellow believers in Jesus Christ: are you really going to accept man's ability to measure time when God has matured His creation in numerous places in the Bible account of creation?

I guess the real question is who do you trust: Creation, the Bible, or God?

Like... how the speed of light cannot be the measuring stick on how old the universe is when God created the source of those lights in the heavens and filled in the gap with those lights to be governing the earth that day when He spoke it to be doing.

Where did He say He did that?

So you either believe in His words in what He has said or... you are leaving the door wide open for the devil to sow doubt in your fellow believer's ear by whispering "Did God really say that?".

And this, my friend, is what drives people away from Christianity in droves -- the notion that any doubt, any skepticism, any questioning is of the devil and must be stamped out utterly. Who wants to put up with that?

Like it or not, playing with theistic evolution will eventually lead a believer to stumble.

And yet, like it or not, the world is full of theistic evolutionists who are not stumbling at all. This would be the other thing driving people away in droves -- your total disconnect form reality.

The devil isn't going to let that opportunity go by when a believer is doubting God's word. The devil will make him doubt more & more until he just doesn't believe in God anymore, regardless of how "science" keeps updating and changing what they believe to be true of the evolution theory as proof that they are stumbling around in the dark.

Seems pretty clear form here which of us is stumbling around in the dark. You give people an ultimatum; force them to choose your way or the highway, and act oh-so-surprised when they choose the highway.

 

[Tellastory]

And that's sad, because there's really no reason they should be at odds -- any conflict is in the mind of the believer.

Doesn't change the fact that believers not rooted in the word are offended by the word because they believe in the evolution theory over His words.

It may force a person to question their understanding of God -- and if they never came to the realization that their understanding of the infinite and almighty creator of the Universe may be finite and fallible to say the least, then it might be a bit too much for them to handle.

When something is causing a brother to stumble is why we should not speak of it, but avoid it. His words are enough for us to live by.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

If the evolution theory overthrows the faith of some, how can you ignore this instruction as a fellow believer and follower of Jesus Christ as His disciple out of love for believers in Christ that are not rooted in the word?

If you read this closely, it's "no lie is the truth" -- which really isn't as profound as it originally sounded.

The evolution theory has never been proven, but the world is talking about it as if it was, all the while ignoring how the evolution theory is still being modified, recanted in some places, and other areas are still in the process of determining that brings the evolution theory in question.

So not proven yet. That's stumbling around in the dark in my view.

And yet, like it or not, the world is full of theistic evolutionists who are not stumbling at all. This would be the other thing driving people away in droves -- your total disconnect form reality.

You are only proving my point as they are not rooted in the word to know the truth so as to be not offended by the word to be driven away.

Seems pretty clear form here which of us is stumbling around in the dark. You give people an ultimatum; force them to choose your way or the highway, and act oh-so-surprised when they choose the highway.

I am sorry that you saw my post as a personal attack on you & all thiestic evolutionists, brother, but let's be realistic about the situation here. If there was no evolution theory, believers not rooted in the word would not be driven away because of it ( although there are other lies in the world as well as peer pressure that can still do that for not being rooted in the word).

If there was no Bible, but just the evolution theory, then I would imagine the world would be an even more of a dog eat dog mentality because everyone would be living on bigotry and ambitions that natural selection would be the just cause for murder, abortion, euthanasia. suicide, & wars.

Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

No corrupt tree can produce a good fruit and no good tree can produce an evil fruit. Whethor or not you agree with this application for discernment, I just see the evolution theory as a corrupt tree for what it is.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The evolution theory has never been proven,

Neither has germ theory, atomic theory or gravitational theory. You clearly don't know what 'theory' means, in the scientific context.

but the world is talking about it as if it was,

'The world' (read: scientifically literate people) is talking about it as if it's among the best supported scientific theories. Which it is.

all the while ignoring how the evolution theory is still being modified,

Modifying a theory does not invalidate it.

recanted in some places,

Virtually no one in the relevant scientific fields has 'recanted' the ToE. Those that do have terrible reasons for doing so.

and other areas are still in the process of determining that brings the evolution theory in question.

Accumulating knowledge in new areas of study does not invalidate the ToE.

You are speaking out of ignorance.

 

[RickG]

I cannot speak for all creationists, but I have seen the evolution theory turned a fellow classmate into not believing in Jesus Christ any more.

So let's address that

Probably the best solution to that is to regard the Genesis creation story as not literal. This is easy to accept when looking at some of the other problems with Genesis 1.

• Plants were made and bearing fruit prior to the sun being created?
• Land plants appear before any animals?

It is just common knowledge of what we know about our physical world today that those two things are not factual. If one is willing to accept that, it only makes sense that creating man out of a lump of mud and woman from a rib does not have to be literal either. Consider what the people of that time knew about their physical environment and how they perceived things. It make sense in that "time", but not today with what we know. What are we going to believe, what man has written down being unknowingly ignorant of the working of their physical environment, or the physical evidence left by God that is contained in the earth and stellar space?



Grasping reality doesn't mean we have to abandon God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Doesn't change the fact that believers not rooted in the word are offended by the word because they believe in the evolution theory over His words.

Except that "fact" is based on a faulty premise -- that evolutionary theory is at odds with God.

You can attempt to manufacture a conflict -- but that doesn't make it so.

When something is causing a brother to stumble is why we should not speak of it, but avoid it. His words are enough for us to live by.

If something is causing a brother to consider that perhaps his understanding of God is imperfect, that is a sign of humility, and should be embraced -- or at the very least, examined.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

So we agree that vain babblings should be avoided -- the question remains, which babblings are the vain ones?

Certainly not God's -- how about your own?

If the evolution theory overthrows the faith of some, how can you ignore this instruction as a fellow believer and follower of Jesus Christ as His disciple out of love for believers in Christ that are not rooted in the word?

If the faith of some is based on a faulty understanding of God, His word, and His plan for us, should it not be overthrown?

Probably not -- it should be allowed to grow and correct itself -- a pity that "believers" (in what, that is the question) place stumbling blocks in the form of ultimatums in the path of those who would otherwise be learners.

In short, evolution doesn't drive people away from Christianity -- you do.

The evolution theory has never been proven, but the world is talking about it as if it was, all the while ignoring how the evolution theory is still being modified, recanted in some places, and other areas are still in the process of determining that brings the evolution theory in question.

So not proven yet. That's stumbling around in the dark in my view.

Theories don't get "proven," they get supported by the evidence.

No wonder you drive away Christians -- having shown so much ignorance and misinformation in matters of this world, how can you be trusted to say anything worthwhile about the next?

You are only proving my point as they are not rooted in the word to know the truth so as to be not offended by the word to be driven away.

But if you're offering yourself as an example of one who "knows" the truth, you're doing an exceptionally poor job of it -- no wonder they run away from the likes of you.

I am sorry that you saw my post as a personal attack on you & all thiestic evolutionists, brother, but let's be realistic about the situation here. If there was no evolution theory, believers not rooted in the word would not be driven away because of it ( although there are other lies in the world as well as peer pressure that can still do that for not being rooted in the word).

If they're not "rooted in the word," would you have them remain that way? Do you not want well-informed believers, or do the ends justify the means?

If there was no Bible, but just the evolution theory, then I would imagine the world would be an even more of a dog eat dog mentality because everyone would be living on bigotry and ambitions that natural selection would be the just cause for murder, abortion, euthanasia. suicide, & wars.

And yet, what force on Earth has caused more strife, more war, and more atrocity than believers arguing over their interpretations of the Bible and other "words of God"? Your imagination notwithstanding, none.

No corrupt tree can produce a good fruit and no good tree can produce an evil fruit. Whethor or not you agree with this application for discernment, I just see the evolution theory as a corrupt tree for what it is.

And yet you are blind to your own corruption -- for which you have my sympathy.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

I didn't say it was clear on EVERYTHING, but in relation to the creation and the most important parts of the Bible it's very clear. "The evening and the morning" is very clear. "Fifteen cubits above the mountains" is also very clear. ..... It isn't the things that are mysterious that bother people, it's the clear unambiguous statements that conflict with what they want to believe.
.

So funny!

KWCrazy calls "very clear" two of the most argued and difficult passages in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis.

Even the English Bible reader, if they compare enough Bible translations, can help but see that it is *NOT* at all clear whether Noah's flood was 15 cubits in height [they had no word for depth] *or* if the flood was 15 cubits above the highest mountain! The Hebrew text's sentence structure is VERY AMBIGUOUS in Genesis 7:20, to say the least!

Of course, there is a reason why "Ignorance is bliss" is an old saying! And in this case, because KWcrazy knows nothing about the Hebrew text of the Bible, he has no idea that there are translation problems with the verse. So what does he do? He simply trusts TRADITION!

When I was in seminary, at a very conservative Evangelical graduate school, our Advanced Hebrew Grammar class required a term paper on various classic exegetical/translation problem passages. (Two-thirds of the class was M.A./OT's so I considered it extremely grueling for a M.Div. elective, cuz many of those M.A. guys are headed for Hebrew/OT Ph.D. programs.) The passage which KWCrazy thinks is "very clear" took me about 45+ pages and probably 120+ footnotes. I would guess that KWC would say that those scholars who disagree with his interpretation were *not* "true Christians", right?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

"Fifteen cubits above the mountains" is also very clear.

KWCrazy,

Why is it "very clear" to you and yet Bible-believing, fundamentalist followers of Jesus Christ committed to faithfully translating the Bible have struggled with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis 7:19-20 for centuries?

What do YOU know that they don't? Did they not pray enough before translating it? Were they not "true Christians"? Did Satan deceive them?

Can the Christ-follower be sure of the correct translation? How can he/she know for certain which of the two traditional translations are correct? Did God INTEND for us to know? Does it matter?

Has God given us the answer?

Is it possible that what the Bible leaves ambiguous and unanswered about Noah's flood, God's Book of Creation answers very clearly?


.

 

[AV1611VET]

KWCrazy,

Why is it "very clear" to you and yet Bible-believing, fundamentalist followers of Jesus Christ committed to faithfully translating the Bible have struggled with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis 7:19-20 for centuries?

What do YOU know that they don't? Did they not pray enough before translating it? Were they not "true Christians"? Did Satan deceive them?

Can the Christ-follower be sure of the correct translation? How can he/she know for certain which of the two traditional translations are correct? Did God INTEND for us to know? Does it matter?

Has God given us the answer?

Is it possible that what the Bible leaves ambiguous and unanswered about Noah's flood, God's Book of Creation answers very clearly?

Long live the KJVO movement!

 

[mathetes123]

Probably the best solution to that is to regard the Genesis creation story as not literal. This is easy to accept when looking at some of the other problems with Genesis 1.

• Plants were made and bearing fruit prior to the sun being created?
• Land plants appear before any animals?

It is just common knowledge of what we know about our physical world today that those two things are not factual. If one is willing to accept that, it only makes sense that creating man out of a lump of mud and woman from a rib does not have to be literal either. Consider what the people of that time knew about their physical environment and how they perceived things. It make sense in that "time", but not today with what we know. What are we going to believe, what man has written down being unknowingly ignorant of the working of their physical environment, or the physical evidence left by God that is contained in the earth and stellar space?



Grasping reality doesn't mean we have to abandon God.

But light was created before the plants.

The plants needed to be created before the animals to provide food for them.

Which is easier to believe, that an intelligent designer created everything or that everything came from nothing, life spontaneously appeared from non-life, evolved the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and through a series of beneficial cancers, life evolved from the goo, through the zoo to me and you?

I choose to believe what God's inspired word clearly tells me in scripture.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

When something is causing a brother to stumble is why we should not speak of it, but avoid it. His words are enough for us to live by.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Can we assume that you understand that the context of Paul's Letter to Timothy is that what Elizabethan English of 1611 KJV calls "science " is derived from the Greek word GNOSIS ("knowledge") because the Apostle Paul was talking about a HERESY, the heresy know as GNOSTICISM.

Gnosticism was a major problem in the early Church. To link it to MODERN SCIENCE in any way as a part of creationist anti-evolution arguments is an ANACHRONISM FALLACY erring by over a dozen centuries.

Now I realize that Tellastory is trying to use a little different angle, the make-a-brother-stumble angle. But I would argue that not only is that a misapplication of a HERESY passage [evolution theory is NOT heresy; it doesn't threaten the Gospel or even the Bible in general]. And I identity the problem that causes the weaker brother to stumble is the FALL DICHOTOMY of creationists demanding "You must choose between Science and the Bible! You can't choose both!" That is a lie.

Indeed, those who lie to the flock and vilify evolutionary biology and science in general by such false dichotomies are doing enormous damage to the Great Commission. I would say without hesitation that convicted felon Kent Hovind and "creation science" ministry entrepreneurs like Ken Ham have encouraged MANY more to leave the Church than Richard Dawkins EVER will.

The heretical corruptions of the Gospel message and the unnecessary absolute dichotomies of such false teachers cause MANY more "weak brothers" to stumble. And I was almost one of those stumblers, until I was able to learn that I didn't have to throw my brain away before walking through the church doors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can we assume that you understand that the context of Paul's Letter to Timothy is that what Elizabethan English of 1611 KJV calls "science " is derived from the Greek word GNOSIS ("knowledge") because the Apostle Paul was talking about a HERESY, the heresy know as GNOSTICISM.

KJ English &#8800; Elizabethan English

KJ English = Jacobean English

 

[RickG]

But light was created before the plants.

The plants needed to be created before the animals to provide food for them.

Which is easier to believe, that an intelligent designer created everything or that everything came from nothing, life spontaneously appeared from non-life, evolved the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and through a series of beneficial cancers, life evolved from the goo, through the zoo to me and you?

I choose to believe what God's inspired word clearly tells me in scripture.

Yeah, light without the sun. That's another problem, isn't it, unless you provide a non literal explanation which then means abandoning a literal translation.

Nevertheless, the point missed is the fact that land plants did not appear in the geologic record until Ordovician, 450 million years ago; well after marine plants and animals. Flowering plants, i.e. fruits, did not appear until the Triassic 200 million years ago. These are facts known to be true.

The only argument I am making is that with this knowledge, I see no problem in seeing the evolution of not only all life, but man as well.