Why is evolution wrong?

[Dannager]

EDIT: Oh monkey, didn't notice which forum this is in.

If you'd like to learn a little more about evolutionary theory, Adoniram, we can discuss it if you begin a thread in the Origins Theology forum.

 

[gluadys]

It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for "man" in this verse (also in Gen. 1:26 & 27), and the Hebrew word for "Adam," in Gen. 2:19, where we first find that name, are the same. The Hebrew word is: 'âdâm. It means "human being," or "first man."

A little off topic,but I'm curioius, since I don't know Hebrew. What feature of the Hebrew in Gen. 2:19 indicates that adam here is a proper name rather than the word "man"? I have seen it translated both ways.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

A little off topic,but I'm curioius, since I don't know Hebrew. What feature of the Hebrew in Gen. 2:19 indicates that adam here is a proper name rather than the word "man"? I have seen it translated both ways.

I can't answer the Hebrew part but I can't tell you that we can know for certain it was a proper name because of how else it is used in the Bible.

Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 

[gluadys]

I can't answer the Hebrew part but I can't tell you that we can know for certain it was a proper name because of how else it is used in the Bible.

Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Doesn't answer the question. I never suggested it was not a proper name, but it is also a common noun. I agree a genealogy implies a proper name, but that doesn't occur until chapter 5.

The Job passage is not helpful either as it is translated variously, not always with a proper name. e.g. NIV version:

33 if I have concealed my sin as men do, [a]
by hiding my guilt in my heart


So given it has both meanings, what distinguishes the proper name usage from the common noun usage? How do we know we first find the name, not the common noun, in Gen. 2:19 as Adoniram asserts?

 

[Tissue]

Is this statement really true?

I guess what we're talking about is the "process" by which man came to be. Evolution contends it was a process starting with an extremely simple lifeform (they won't define what it was or how it came to be in the first place), which over millions of years of reproduction, through "natural selection" and "beneficial" mutation, slowly and gradually evolved into a man. The Bible contends that there was not much process to it. God picked up some dirt, fashioned it in the form of a man, and breathed life into him.

Evolution is a theory that can be applied from any number of origins to any number of destinations. It isn't specifically tied to any of them.

The Bible indicates that God created a specific, first person, whose name is known as Adam, whose history is told and remembered, and that he was created whole and complete in one act.

Perhaps. Assuming we are to interpret Genesis literally.

It's simply not credible to believe that the God of the Bible, a God of means, power, and purpose, who provides and cares for men so much that he sent his only Son to earth to provide the means for their salvation, would have created men through the process of randomness that is evolution. There is no room for evolution in the Bible, theistic or otherwise.

What's so incredible about it? Whether it is directly by his hands (which seems to be the image Christianity has latched onto), or whether it is indirectly by evolutionary forces he has put into motion, God is still the ultimate Creator of 'adam'. There is plenty of room for evolution in the Bible.

In regards to the fossil record, age of the universe, and other indicators that evolutionists claim support their theory, I have to agree with Biblewriter that the "evidence" is being grossly misinterpreted (or worse) by a large body of scientists. But I am also confident that in the end, the truth will prevail.

Truth WILL prevail, be it evolutionary or creationistic. That's a simple fact of the progress of research.

I think there's a gross amount of misinterpretation on both sides of this issue. I think far too many evolutionists are jumping too far ahead, and I think far too many creationists are filling in gaps with assumption. We'll have to see how it turns out.

DISCLAIMER: For the purposes of this conversation, I am a Creationist, in that I am not attempting to discourage anyone from their beliefs in Creationism. In fact, I have no solid stance on the origins of the world, other than the very loose framework given by Scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can't answer the Hebrew part but I can't tell you that we can know for certain it was a proper name because of how else it is used in the Bible.

Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

There is no doubt about the New Testament passages. There is little doubt about the Old Testament one that was cited with book, chapter and verse. From Strong's dictionary:

Job 31:33 (H121 אדם 'âdâm aw-dawm') - Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam.
​

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

It's time Creationists claimed the high ground with Adam being specially created from the Scriptures. I see no reason that we should be shunned in the scientific, legal and academic fields because we are religiously oriented and then quit when they intrude into our theology.

Creationism is solid as doctrine, don't let them even suggest otherwise. Evolution is weak as science but it has nothing to do with theology. Why on earth would they have the never to parade it as such?

I don't know, maybe you guys can sort it out.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tissue]

A solid doctrine doesn't mean indisputable truth.

 

[mark kennedy]

A solid doctrine doesn't mean indisputable truth.

A solid doctrine does carry enough weight with regards to how a truth can be considered, 'indisputable'. I have looked at both sides and I think Creationism holds a lot of cards it has not played.

 

[Tissue]

A solid doctrine does carry enough weight with regards to how a truth can be considered, 'indisputable'.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.

I have looked at both sides and I think Creationism holds a lot of cards it has not played.

And I would argue it needs to stop playing for big pots and just let the match play out.

 

[busterdog]

A solid doctrine doesn't mean indisputable truth.

The corrollary of the modern dialectic form of philosophy is that human rigor is in and of itself solid, which is manifestly in error. Thinking really hard about something means squat by itself, and without some other truth as its subject.

It is hard to imagine a human doctrine that is not founded either in one or the other: 1. indisputable/revealed truth or 2. really hard work.

Whether a doctrine is"solid" obviously begs the question of whether you think 1. is even possible or that 2. is anything but ephemeral.

I agree that there are legitimate doctrines that can be argued either way with reason (human rigor) on both sides. How about infant baptism?

However, that is simply our perspective. What about God's perspective. Do we really think he is a relativist? I don't think so.

Yes, there is grace for people who indulge in shades of grey when God demands pure, faultless white. But grace for a doctrinal position doesn't make it truthful or proper. It just makes it forgiven.

 

[gluadys]

There is no doubt about the New Testament passages. There is little doubt about the Old Testament one that was cited with book, chapter and verse. From Strong's dictionary:

Job 31:33 (H121 אדם 'âdâm aw-dawm') - Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam.
​

Again you miss the point. I have never disputed that "Adam" is used as both a proper name and as a common noun meaning "man" "human person".

What I am asking is how we know (as per Adoniram's assertion) that in Gen. 2:19 we have the proper name and not the common noun?

What difference is there in the Hebrew that tells us "adam" in Gen. 2:7 means "man" and "adam" in Gen. 2:19 means "Adam"?

Please let us not go off on a theological tangent. I am asking a question about the Hebrew text and how it distinguishes a proper name from a common noun. In English we use an upper case letter to distinguish "pearl" (the object) from "Pearl" (a woman's name). Hebrew, I know, does not use this convention. So what does it use? And is this evident in Gen. 2:19?

 

[FallingWaters]

A little off topic,but I'm curioius, since I don't know Hebrew. What feature of the Hebrew in Gen. 2:19 indicates that adam here is a proper name rather than the word "man"? I have seen it translated both ways.

I f you'd like, you can check more into the Hebrew here:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0120&Version=kjv
and here
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0121&Version=kjv

Apparently, there are 2 versions of "Adam" Hebrew words 120 & 121.

Numbere 121 is always translated Adam.
Number 120 is only rarely translated Adam (13 times) and the majority of the time translated "man" (408 times) or "men" (121 times).

Gen. 2:19 uses H120 twice.


I don't know how they decide which to use, when.

 

[gluadys]

I
I don't know how they decide which to use, when.

You and me both. Thanks for the link. But I am left as confused as ever.

I can't see why Strong has listed it twice. The commentary from Gesenius treats them as the same word. (If you check the text under H121 it begins at point (4) obviously carrying on from the three points listed under H120).

Furthermore, although the KJV translates the nine instances of H121 as Adam, other translators don't always.

And in any case, as you noted, Strong lists both occurrences of 'adam' in Gen. 2:19 as H120, the one that can have either translation.

 

[FallingWaters]

You and me both. Thanks for the link. But I am left as confused as ever.

I can't see why Strong has listed it twice. The commentary from Gesenius treats them as the same word. (If you check the text under H121 it begins at point (4) obviously carrying on from the three points listed under H120).

Furthermore, although the KJV translates the nine instances of H121 as Adam, other translators don't always.

And in any case, as you noted, Strong lists both occurrences of 'adam' in Gen. 2:19 as H120, the one that can have either translation.

I have summoned help from PrincetonGuy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Their notes are certainly strange. Both words are spelled the same both in English and Hebrew. Those marks that I assume are vowel points are also identical.

I'm puzzled as to why there are two entries at all.

I wonder if Assyrian might be able to help. (Not dissin' Princeton Guy, I think, though, that Assyrian might also be able to help.)

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

To add more input to the discussion I decided to look at the Greek O.T. which by the way was written before the time of Christ by Jews. The Greek word used in Genesis 2:21 is αδαμ. This is a proper name. Man in Greek is ανθρωπος.

 

[FallingWaters]

Doesn't answer the question. I never suggested it was not a proper name, but it is also a common noun. I agree a genealogy implies a proper name, but that doesn't occur until chapter 5.

The Job passage is not helpful either as it is translated variously, not always with a proper name. e.g. NIV version:

33 if I have concealed my sin as men do, [a]
by hiding my guilt in my heart


So given it has both meanings, what distinguishes the proper name usage from the common noun usage? How do we know we first find the name, not the common noun, in Gen. 2:19 as Adoniram asserts?

By the way, why are you asking? What difference will it make to your understanding? What are you trying to figure out exactly?

 

[gluadys]

By the way, why are you asking? What difference will it make to your understanding? What are you trying to figure out exactly?

Wouldn't make much difference to my understanding. I was just surprised to see an assertion that "Adam" appears as a proper name for the first time in a specific verse when I knew that different translations handle the Hebrew differently.

So I was wondering if there was any basis in the Hebrew text for that claim.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have summoned help from PrincetonGuy.

You and me both. Thanks for the link. But I am left as confused as ever.

I can't see why Strong has listed it twice. The commentary from Gesenius treats them as the same word. (If you check the text under H121 it begins at point (4) obviously carrying on from the three points listed under H120).

Furthermore, although the KJV translates the nine instances of H121 as Adam, other translators don't always.

And in any case, as you noted, Strong lists both occurrences of 'adam' in Gen. 2:19 as H120, the one that can have either translation.

The Hebrew word for “man” and the proper name “man” are identical and it is up to the translators to determine by the context in which the Hebrew word is used whether the Hebrew should be translated a “man” or “Adam.” James Strong, in his concordance, listed “Adam” twice in order to indicate to the user using an asterisk that in some instances the American edition of the Revised Version (commonly known at the American Standard Version) but not the British edition of the Revised Version translated the Hebrew word differently than it was translated in the Authorized Version of 1611. It is interesting to observe that Paul, when quoting from Genesis 2:7 in 1 Cor. 15:45, quoted from the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew rather than translating directly from the Hebrew and that he added the word “first” and the proper name “Adam” to the quote (the Septuagint first translated the Hebrew word as “Adam” in Gen. 2:15). This and other quotes by Paul from the New Testament in which he paraphrased the Septuagint rather than using a literal translation of the Hebrew demonstrates that he did not in every case believe that a strict, literal translation of the Hebrew Old Testament was appropriate.

1 Cor. 15:45. So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (NASB, 1995)

 

[gluadys]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, PrincetonGuy. So the reason for two entries in Strong has nothing to do with the Hebrew, but with the English of the ASV. Very interesting indeed.


You've been very helpful.