Why I don't believe in evolution...

Isaiah 41:10 said:

And only by reading the original Hebrew and by reading contemporary texts of that time, can this be seen quite clearly.

Click to expand...

When you veer outside the Bible in that regard, you become blind. You do not see clearly. Stick to inerrant scripture.

Sam Saved by Grace said:

When you veer outside the Bible in that regard, you become blind. You do not see clearly. Stick to inerrant scripture.

Click to expand...

The scripture says what it says. You can't re-write it.

What do you think Genesis means when it refers to windows of the firmament in which water passes through windows (Gen 7:11, Gen 8:2), and birds flying across the face of the firmament (Gen 1:20), and pillars supporting the heavens, and heavenly bodies being placed in the firmament (Genesis 1:14-17), not beyond the firmament, but in it, if all this is not evidence that ancient Hebrews were describing not a global planet, but rather a flat region of a limited distance in which if they walked far enough, they'd reach the end of?

What were the birds flying across the face of? What were the windows in this object which has a flat or face-like surface? And how were lights (stars) placed within it, yet water rested above it which could then pass through it's windows as rain?

The only logical explanation for all of this, is to accept it for what it says, which is exactly what every other culture of this time also believed, and that is that the earth was flat with a solid dome over it with windows. The windows would open and rain would fall in. The stars were pinned to its solid face. Birds flew across and in front of it (between land and the dome). Pillars held it up etc.

When Genesis 1:10 refers to dry ground called "land", the same Hebrew word is used to refer to local areas such as Israel, as noted above.

The flood of Noah has all been written in Genesis under the pretext of a local or regional deluge. This is what has been truly written.

And nothing, literally nothing, written in Genesis even begins to suggest otherwise. And no modern western English revisionist, scientifically influenced translation can change that.


The Hebrew scripture says what it says. God's Word says what it says.

You are being very deceptive.

It is true that God often uses language we can understand, such as "opening the windows of heaven". But you have to remember that the flood was not a natural event - it was a supernatural event, as was the creation of the world. God using language we can understand does absolutely nothing to undermine the historicity of those events, nor does it justify limiting the scope of those events in such a way as to try and harmonize them with man's view of history.

This is not merely a matter of whether the Bible uses descriptive language, and for you to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Sam Saved by Grace said:

You are being very deceptive.

It is true that God often uses language we can understand, such as "opening the windows of heaven". But you have to remember that the flood was not a natural event - it was a supernatural event, as was the creation of the world. God using language we can understand does absolutely nothing to undermine the historicity of those events, nor does it justify limiting the scope of those events in such a way as to try and harmonize them with man's view of history.

This is not merely a matter of whether the Bible uses descriptive language, and for you to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Click to expand...

Ok? So what do these words mean (in your personal opinion)? Windows rest in solid objects. Water is solid, if water is blocked but for windows that open to let it through, it's something solid. If birds fly across the face of it, then if it had a face, it's not a gas and it's flat. If pillars hold it up, it's solid. If stars are placed within it, it is equidistant. If water comes through it and falls onto land, then it is near earth, unless you think the waters of the flood were coming from some distant galaxy.

Every other culture at this time of history believed in a dome, a solid firmament. A solid structure, spread out (expanded as metal spreads and expands when flattened), which separates the waters from the waters, in which the lights (stars) are pinned within and into, and so when the firmament rotated, it carries the stars (as stars move together in the night across the sky as if they are stuck in something solid), which is held up on each side by pillars (pillars hold up solid things, they don't hold up gas or liquid). Which if you walked in one direction, you would reach the end of the land, and you might stick your finger through it. Ancient cultures have stories of shooting arrows into it, and hitting it with spears, and climbing through it's windows to the other side (Yes even other cultures also believed that it had windows that in some cases people actually climbed through!).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw21a4KgzTxIQhlVuIWIKCtk

So why would the authors of Hebrews be an exception when all of these verses, Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Genesis, Genesis 1:14-17, Genesis 1:20, all of these verses and more, clearly suggest that the authors believed precisely what everyone else around them at that time believed. And not only that, But nothing in Genesis suggests otherwise. There's literally no verse in Genesis that suggests that our planet is round or that the firmament was made of gas or empty space, otherwise how would water be resting atop the firmament, waiting for windows to open to pass through? And how would stars be placed within it? The only logical explanation is that the authors believed it was a dome over a flat land, just like everyone else of that time.


You suggest that Genesis is the exception to The fact that communities around the world at this time believed in a flat earth with a dome over it. You think that the authors of Genesis were an exception, but you've offered no evidence and no scripture to back that up. On the other hand I have all the evidence in the world of cultures from Africa and North America, India, Egypt, Japan, the Sumerians, the Hittites, Siberia, the Pacific Islands etc etc., Evidence from all of these cultures and all of the people of all of these lands and more, all suggest that they all believed that the earth was flat with a solid dome over it.

And you seem to think that the authors of Genesis were an exception in the face of all of these verses in Genesis which clearly suggest otherwise.

And you've offered no evidence.

Youre putting your own personal scientific bias, before what scripture actually says. Which is why you can't answer what these verses actually mean, despite them clearly saying precisely what they mean, that a solid dome covered the flat land. As it was written.

What you're doing, what you're saying, is blatantly anti-biblical (your position opposes what the verses clearly say), it's anti-historical (it opposed what historical records clearly suggest that everyone believed in a solid dome atop a flat land), and its even anti-scientific (YECs are absolutely anti-scientific).

We've reached a place where truth in scripture and truth of God aligns with truth of historical records and aligns with truth of scientific observation. But you would rather deny it all. For what good reason but for personal pride?

coffee4u said:

I see naturism as the foundation or the stage for the delusion to come

Click to expand...

Your delusion is to confuse the methodological naturalism of science with the ontological naturalism that says "the physical universe is all there is."

Science, by it's methods, can neither support nor deny the supernatural.

It's like plumbing. There's no way to support or deny the supernatural, using plumbing. Plumbing can't make that kind of determination.

But plumbers can. Science is like that, too.

I have read the Genesis account and I did not get the impression of a "flat earth with a dome". I think you are reading other creation myths into the Genesis text. In fact, you betrayed as much when, in respect to what you claim as a proper understanding of the Genesis narrative, you stated that such could only be ascertained by "reading the original Hebrew and by reading contemporary texts of that time."

So I will pass on your particular brand of hermeneutics. I have no use for extrabiblical sources in that regard. As a Christian, I affirm not only the inerrancy of God's Word, but the sufficiency. In fact, anyone claiming to be a believer who does not hold to both the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture should examine themselves, to see if they are in the faith.

Sam Saved by Grace said:

I have read the Genesis account and I did not get the impression of a "flat earth with a dome". I think you are reading other creation myths into the Genesis text. In fact, you betrayed as much when, in respect to what you claim as a proper understanding of the Genesis narrative, you stated that such could only be ascertained by "reading the original Hebrew and by reading contemporary texts of that time."

So I will pass on your particular brand of hermeneutics. I have no use for extrabiblical sources in that regard. As a Christian, I affirm not only the inerrancy of God's Word, but the sufficiency. In fact, anyone claiming to be a believer who does not hold to both the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture should examine themselves, to see if they are in the faith.

Click to expand...

If people change the translations of the original Hebrew and in many cases even omit hebrew words from their translations (which is common and I can show you if you're interested), then I'd say it's absolutely true that at least in these particular cases, we would miss the original meaning of God's word. Just like if someone changed the words and translating any other document. If someone wrote me a letter saying that they baked a chocolate cake, and it got translated into another language and the word chocolate was omitted, then the new reader would simply read that a cake of an unknown flavor was baked, and they could miss the original meaning.

I understand that God's word is for all times, but we can't be closed off to the possibility that our re-translations of scripture aren't always comparable to the original. Some translations I've scripture have been made for political reasons and reasons so that people can collect funds for their distributions. People make nutrients based on their sectarian biases etc. It should be of no surprise to any of us that in these translations, sometimes that original meaning can be lost.

In which case it's fair to go back to the original text for a more clear understanding of what was originally stated by God.

For example, if I say that in the beginning, God created the milky way Galaxy and the Global Planet earth, I would actually be changing what was originally said in God's word. Just like the Jehovah's Witness bible translation referring to "a god". If we change the translations, then It should be of no surprise to us that we won't find the original meaning. Or at least are unlikely to.

That's all I'm saying. And in this case, you're putting trust into modern translations, over original scripture, as it was written.

The historical accounts of other cultures, and scientific support backing the original Hebrew scripture, These are just supporting evidences for my position. I do not rely on them. They just back up my position. And they stand in contrast to your position.

This all goes back to my older point that if you have two interpretations that are conflicting, one of the easiest things you can do is look toward external details to corroborate your position.

And this is why it's actually good during Bible studies to read multiple translations of the same verse. Every individual translation is good if it can bring us closer to the Lord, but if we're really trying to figure out what a verse says, sitting around reading only one translation will often only get you so far, especially depending on the translation.

With that said:

A. I'm trusting in the literal and original Hebrew, whereas you're taking some sort of figurative or extra-"descriptive" interpretation of Genesis. It's unclear what that even means. Rather than taking the words at face value, you are suggesting that the Bible is using "descriptive" words that perhaps would help people understand things. So when God says that water had passed through windows of the firmament, in reality there are no such things as these windows or this firmament but rather God meant something else that is unclear. Rather than just taking scripture as it is written, you're starting to weigh in with some sort of subjective additions to it. And why you're doing that I don't really know. Do you have something to lose by accepting Genesis as it is literally written?

B. My position is backed up by historical accounts of every other culture of every other continent around the world. Your position doesn't have any of that. Despite part A, You're willing to hold your position even in the face of dozens of historical accounts that support my position and go against yours. Why? What do you have to lose that's so important that you would deny historical records as well? And it isn't reading history into Genesis, rather it's viewing context of Genesis which affirms what it literally says. Genesis says what it says, and the historical accounts are simply icing on the cake. The icing isn't making the cake but it certainly is supporting it.

C. My position is also backed by modern science which suggests that this deluge of Genesis was not global but rather was regional. Your position again doesn't have that. This one is easy for me because I also happen to be a geologist. My scientific observations as a geologist actually confirm what the book of Genesis is literally saying. Whereas your position is also contra to scientific observations as well.

Your position runs contrary to all three fronts, scripture, history, and science. But why? What do you stand to lose that you would stand in contrast to all three of these fronts, despite simultaneously not having scriptural support in suggesting the contrary (as described by Genesis, as per OT scholars such as in my linked article), despite not having historical accounts to the contrary (as described by historical accounts) and despite not having science to the contrary (as described by scientists).

The primary position is acquired through reading of the original literal hebrew text. The rest is just additional support.

And if you didn't get the impression that the firmament was a solid dome after reading Genesis, why do you think your interpretation is correct over anyone else's, in light of not having scripture, history or science which suggests otherwise?

Genesis doesn't describe the firmament being empty space or gas. It says it has windows and water above the windows. That has lights within it. So why believe that Genesis doesn't mean what it says?

Sam Saved by Grace said:

I have read the Genesis account and I did not get the impression of a "flat earth with a dome".

Click to expand...

1 Samuel 2:8 He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. “For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world.

Isaiah 20:42 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Job 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

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.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Psalms 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

And a denial of a moving Earth:

1 Chronicles 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

For one who takes the Bible as inerrant, there is far more support therein for a flat Earth than for a young Earth.

Genesis 1:6-8
"And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." NIV

These are the same waters of the deluge, so this does in fact imply that the firmament held back literal and physical water.

Genesis 1:14
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years." NIV

Lights in the firmament or in the fault meaning that stars were within this structure which held back the waters. Again, a physical thing. And this also implies that stars are perhaps equidistant and near the land.

Genesis 1:20
"And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” NIV

We're the birds flying across empty space? No. They're flying across [the face of] the vault in the sky (read the Hebrew). The same vault which holds up water. The same vault which contains the equidistant stars. The same vault with windows that will allow water through for the deluge.

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


Did the waters of the deluge come from billions of light years away from beyond the stars (beyond the firmament which contains the lights) through time-space worm-holes (windows)?

No.

This is obviously not what the ancient Jews believed. The sky is blue, much like the ocean, the stars appear equidistant at night, and equal in distance with the sky during the day.

It was a simple conclusion that the stars of the night, in the firmament, were directly above them, almost within reach. And that the blue sky was actually water being held up, nearly equidistant to the stars or lights. And when the windows of the firmament would open, water would come down. It's just as simple and straight forward as it reads. No mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty needed. Just read what it clearly says.

I say this with respect, but frankly, I don't have to account to you for what I believe. I am worried about answering to God. If you take issue with my stance, then that is too bad. And I also couldn't care less about your phony translation argument, and I remind you that a typical serpentine tactic is to try and cast suspicion on the Word of God. I use a very literal translation and have access to many more. This has never been an issue for me, thanks but no thanks. Furthermore, I believe the Bible to be 100% inerrant, and would believe it even over my own two eyes, so you will surely fail in your attempt to persuade me. Indeed, rather than broadening our approach, we should narrow it even further. In the meantime, I had much rather focus on doing God's will and renewing my mind, rather than puffing myself up through what is falsely called "knowledge".

But thank you for taking the time to share with me.

Sam Saved by Grace said:

I say this with respect, but frankly, I don't have to account to you for what I believe. I am worried about answering to God. If you take issue with my stance, then that is too bad. And I also couldn't care less about your phony translation argument, and I remind you that a typical serpentine tactic is to try and cast suspicion on the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Your word is not the word of God. It's just your personal interpretation. It's a typical serpentine tactic to present one's own interpretation as the word of God.

I'm comfortable with the cases made by both parties. I'm confident in my own approach and in my opinion that it more accurately represents His Word, and that's good enough for me as well. May God give us grace in our interpretations of His Word. Amen.

Science changes with time and it evolves over the time. Science in the future disproves science in the past. Human consciousness and logical mind are foundations for science.

But God was, is and will be same. No scope of evolution here. He is beyond human consciousness and logical mind. Foundation for Christianity is faith.

In fact, we naturally live by faith. We accept our earthly father by faith. In the same way, our earthly father accepts us as child. He never goes for a DNA confirmation to scientifically prove and then accept us as his child.

Friendship, love and marriage what not, everything survives as long we have faith.

I don’t bother about Darvin’s evolution theory and I’m not sure how it evolves eventually. This is just a theory. Let it be right or wrong. It won’t change my faith.

My faith is sufficient for me to lead my earthly life (as long as I live here)and heavenly life (after I die)

bangmegafan said:

Science changes with time and it evolves over the time. Science in the future disproves science in the past. Human consciousness and logical mind are foundations for science.

Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look. The world is round. That was first known, hundreds of years before Christ. Eratosthenes of Alexandria actually measured it back then. Was he disproven? Well, no, but it turns out, the Earth is very slightly out of round. You wouldn't notice looking at it from space, but it is. Science refined what was known.

That's how most science works. Rarely is a theory completely upended. The one in our lifetime is plate tectonics, which became understood in the 1960s, and completely revised our ideas about the formation of continents and oceans. Mostly not like that.

Another earlier was the discovery that we are in a galaxy of incredible size that is just an ordinary one among countless trillions of other galaxies.

Mostly not like that, though. Even the phlogiston/oxidation issue was mostly a matter of nomenclature.

bangmegafan said:

I don’t bother about Darvin’s evolution theory and I’m not sure how it evolves eventually. This is just a theory. Let it be right or wrong. It won’t change my faith.

Click to expand...

Wise decision. It makes no difference at all to your salvation,which side you are on. I wish more Christians on all sides of the controversy could be as wise as you, and focus on the things God is actually telling us.

The Barbarian said:

Hence "erets Israel" (the land of Israel).
No one thought that was the who world.

Genesis 2:11 The name of the one is Phison: that is it which compasseth all the land (erets) of Hevilath, where gold groweth.

Click to expand...

All the land under heaven is not the
same as all the land of Hevilath.
Israel did not even own this dry spot of land.

"The name Havilah appears in Genesis 25:18, where it defines
the territory inhabited by the Ishmaelites as being "from Havilah
to Shur, opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria";

Semper-Fi said:

All the land under heaven is not the
same as all the land of Hevilath.
Israel did not even own this dry spot of land.

Click to expand...

Just pointing out that "erets" means some land somewhere. Tebel means "the who world." That's why got said the "land" was covered, but didn't say it covered the whole world.

The Hebrew shows this. I didn't say it. God said it. If you think it's wrong, take it up with Him.

coffee4u said:

Sin caused death.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Where there is no sin there is no death. Death only came to be because Adam sinned.
Evolution would mean life and death for million of years before mankind emerged.

So which is it?
Millions of years of evolution with death.
or no death until sin?

Click to expand...

No one can prove anything because there is no method that does not require subjective assumptions. I believe that there is a credible answer to the question.
This is what I believe:
Those who believe in old earth/young creation are partly right. There was also a creation, that we see recorded in the fossil record, prior to Adam. That creation was destroyed by a catastrophic flood. This was the result of Satan's rebellion. The being once called Lucifer, "Light Bearer", became Satan, God's adversary. This theory has been around since the early days of the church, long before geology was understood as it is now.

Obviously what I've said is the highly condensed version. It may be completely wrong. It does make sense of some difficulties in more traditional points of view.

Aussie Pete said:

Those who believe in old earth/young creation are partly right. There was also a creation, that we see recorded in the fossil record, prior to Adam. That creation was destroyed by a catastrophic flood. This was the result of Satan's rebellion. The being once called Lucifer, "Light Bearer", became Satan, God's adversary. This theory has been around since the early days of the church, long before geology was understood as it is now.

Obviously what I've said is the highly condensed version. It may be completely wrong. It does make sense of some difficulties in more traditional points of view.

Click to expand...

It does remove some difficulties. The major issue is that there is no geological evidence for a world wide flood, although there are a number of catastrophic regional floods at various times in the past.

Aussie Pete said:

No one can prove anything because there is no method that does not require subjective assumptions. I believe that there is a credible answer to the question.
This is what I believe:
Those who believe in old earth/young creation are partly right. There was also a creation, that we see recorded in the fossil record, prior to Adam. That creation was destroyed by a catastrophic flood. This was the result of Satan's rebellion. The being once called Lucifer, "Light Bearer", became Satan, God's adversary. This theory has been around since the early days of the church, long before geology was understood as it is now.

Obviously what I've said is the highly condensed version. It may be completely wrong. It does make sense of some difficulties in more traditional points of view.

Click to expand...

Who knows? There may be some wild truth that harmonizes science with the Bible. But if God wanted us to know it, He would have told us.

I used to believe in evolution for animals and soulless, pre-Adamic humans. I believed that Cain took a pre-Adamic wife. I believed that all humans today are descended from Adam, with the pre-Adamic humans being wiped out in the Flood. That was my way of harmonizing evolution and the Bible. There may very well be other ways that work far better when it comes to harmonizing science and the Bible. I don't bother with them.

Now that I am saved, I just believe the Bible 100%, as it is described, as if I were reading it with no scientific understanding whatsoever. Setting my thoughts on bizarre theories, conspiracy, too much prophecy, and other such distractions were a product of my vain, unregenerate imagination.

The Barbarian said:

Your word is not the word of God. It's just your personal interpretation. It's a typical serpentine tactic to present one's own interpretation as the word of God.

Click to expand...

I am glad I wasn't drinking something when I read that - I likely would have spat liquid all over my screen. Such great insolence to level that accusation against me. I do believe it was the serpent who can be quoted as saying, "Did God really say...?".

My "interpretation" of "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", is, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

My interpretation of "God said, 'Let there be light'", is, "God said, 'Let there be light'".

My interpretation of "God said, 'Let Us create'", is, "God said, 'Let Us create'".

No, I present the Word of God as the Word of God. I do not seek to reinterpret it to jibe with the word of man. That is what you do.