If Evolution

[The Barbarian]

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what was there at the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female were there.

So, if you want to make what Jesus said literal history, then there are three contradictory creation stories in the Bible. On the other hand, if you acknowledge (as early Christians did) that the creation story is not literal history, then all the difficulties go away.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You have been on this site for 4+ years and you are unaware of the evidence for billions of years?
You cannot be that ignorant.

If there's evidence as readily available as you say it is, then please, just give one or two examples for each of the claims you made above.

It's not my job to go looking for that evidence.

Onus probandi.

 

[6days]

In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what was there at the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female were there.

Jesus tells us that from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ Jesus is correct. You can read about the beginning in Genesis 1.

as early Christians did) that the creation story is not literal history, then all the difficulties go away.

You are dishonest. Early Christians... even in scripture argued against the evolutionists / old earthers of their day, referring to Genesis as a historical event.

Professor Dr Benno Zuiddam (2 PhD's) “God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."

 

[6days]

“Science doesn’t have to drive people away from faith,” says Deborah Haarsma, president of an organization called BioLogos that promotes harmony between science and Christian faith.[/COLOR]

Actually....
Biologos is an organization that encourages Christians to accept evolutionism. It is an organization that has often promoted heretical beliefs. They admit they promote interpreting Scripture based on the evolutionary belief system. "BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation"

Karl Gilberson one of the developers / contributors to Biologos howver has made statements that should concern Christians... For example in a book he stated “…my belief in God is tinged with doubts and, in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that should be abandoned. As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith.”
(He had a job at a Christian college which he later lost)

Albert Mohler wrote an open letter to Gilberson in which he said
“You are straightforward in your celebration of evolution, and you utterly fail to demonstrate how an embrace of evolution can be reconciled with biblical Christianity. Your rejection of an historical Adam and Eve is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined, and your proposed ‘new and better way to understand the origins of sin’ is incompatible with the Bible’s clear teaching.”

Biologos... "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15

 

[Lon]

His claim only stings if you insist that scripture is literally true in all respects without allegory or parable.

Since most Christians acknowledge that Genesis is figurative in many verses, Cobra's point is solid, but beside the point. It only hurts someone who has imposed their own literal interpretation on Genesis.

But the point remains true, even if people don't like it. A few verses aren't much good as a general theology, but when your theology depends on absolute literalism in Genesis, then those verses amount to a complete refutation of that theology.

Most? :nono: Even a good many Catholics believe it literal. Try not to give 'men' without the Holy Spirit, accolades of belief that supplant your belief in God lain: I never met so many superstitious nonsense people in my life as Catholics (whole family on my mother's side is Catholic).

 

[Lon]

Attacking me seems to be your one trick pony.

Persecution complex much? You, are the one on the attack. And no, I don't want to see the same horrible treatment to yet another member on TOL. It was bad enough the first time and it didn't change from one topic to the next. Just you making unfounded assertions.

Rather than attacking me again, why not comment on the topic of the two creation stories?

Because the ONLY thing I'm interested in is YOUR poor treatment of those you deem beneath yourself. Seeing about the exact same dialogue with little to no change? Yeah, I'm not interested in it BUT to tell you to knock it off. People deserve better than you being snarky with attempted condescension. Knock it off.

I am genuinely interested in a few other posters in this thread. Seeing you inanely address them the exact same way I've seen you address me? Yeah, ain't gonna fly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most? :nono: Even a good many Catholics believe it literal.

Some do. It's not an issue that means anything for salvation, so the Church doesn't make it a doctrinal issue.

Try not to give 'men' without the Holy Spirit, accolades of belief that supplant your belief in God lain:

I'm just pointing out that YE creationism is a new doctrine, not something Christians have historically accepted.

I never met so many superstitious nonsense people in my life as Catholics

There aren't as many creationists among them as you seem to think. But there were always some who invented their own doctrines. That's how the reformation happened, after all.

 

[2003cobra]

Wasn't attacking you at all.
Where did you get that idea?

And why would I comment on two creation stories when there is only one and it's not a story, it's revelation?
6days has given you more than you can handle already.

Good to know you deny that there are two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually....
Biologos is an organization that encourages Christians to accept evolutionism.

Evolution. "Evolutionism" is the collection of creationist superstitions about evolution.

It is an organization that has often promoted heretical beliefs. They admit they promote interpreting Scripture based on the evolutionary belief system.

"Evolutionary belief system?" Nope. Show me where they said that. I think you made it up.

Albert Mohler wrote an open letter to Gilberson in which he said
“You are straightforward in your celebration of evolution, and you utterly fail to demonstrate how an embrace of evolution can be reconciled with biblical Christianity. Your rejection of an historical Adam and Eve is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined,

There's an example of creationist superstition. Evolutionary theory does not deny the historical reality of an original two people being the ancestors of all people living today. Al has sipped the kool-aid instead of learning what the theory is really about.

The modern doctrine of YE creationism... "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15[/QUOTE]

 

[2003cobra]

Moses: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Are you aware that the other version of the 10 commandments does not include that phrase?

Exodus 20 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.


Deut 5
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.


I found it interesting.

 

[2003cobra]

As you have been shown, God's Word has one creation account. Jesus thought you should believe it... Jesus: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me"

No, that was not shown.

There are clearly two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation.

You simply deny what the text says.

As my third edition of the Oxford NRSV says:
This tradition, often identified as J, is different from 1.1-2.3, as evidenced by the different style and order of events...Animals are created after the first human rather than before (cf. 1.25-25)

 

[6days]

Evolutionary theory does not deny the historical reality of an original two people being the ancestors of all people living today.

Evolutionism is the advocacy of the common ancestry belief system and a rejection of the Biblical account. Mohler was correct in that heretical Gilberson and Biologos reject "historical Adam and Eve (which) is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined"

 

[2003cobra]

Persecution complex much?

Insulting me again?

That seems to be all you have.

I am more interested in discussing the scriptures.

 

[2003cobra]

Evolutionism is the advocacy of the common ancestry belief system and a rejection of the Biblical account. Mohler was correct in that heretical Gilberson and Biologos reject "historical Adam and Eve (which) is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined"

Acceptance of the 6 day story in Genesis 1.1-2.4a as literal history is a rejection of the second creation story which begins in 2.4b.

Denial of the fact that there are two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation is a rejection of the scriptures.

 

[6days]

There are clearly two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation.

Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 as "the beginning of creation". I will trust Him, and others in Scripture.

As my third edition of the Oxford NRSV says:
This tradition, often identified as J, is different from 1.1-2.3, as evidenced by the different style and order of events...Animals are created after the first human rather than before (cf. 1.25-25)

You were wrong about the plants... now you want to jump to a different version and commentary of scripture... and different verses. No, animals were created before humans. Read Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1 AGAIN... and ALWAYS.

As theologian H.C. Leupold explained, the text is easy to understand, EXCEPT for those who attempt to find contradictions in God's Word. "Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible"

 

[2003cobra]

Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 as "the beginning of creation". I will trust Him, and others in Scripture.
You were wrong about the plants... now you want to jump to a different version and commentary of scripture... and different verses. No, animals were created before humans. Read Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1 AGAIN... and ALWAYS.

As theologian H.C. Leupold explained, the text is easy to understand, EXCEPT for those who attempt to find contradictions in God's Word. "Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible"

You found another person who denies what the text actually says!

Man was alone, so God made the animals in search of a companion.

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken."

The NET Bible notes addresses Leupold’s error:

58 tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

 

[6days]

Are you aware that the other version of the 10 commandments does not include that phrase?

Haha... So there are contradictory versions of the ten commandments also? If you want help finding supposed contradictions, there are atheist web sites such as Talkorigins to help you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what was there at the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female were there.

So, if you want to make what Jesus said literal history, then there are three contradictory creation stories in the Bible. On the other hand, if you acknowledge (as early Christians did) that the creation story is not literal history, then all the difficulties go away.

Compared to the latter thousands of years since creation, the first six days ARE the beginning of creation.

What Jesus said is incompatible with ANYTHING BUT the creation story in Genesis.

The sixth day, if taken to mean a few thousand years after the first "day," would not be at the beginning of creation. Same if "day" means millions or billions of years.

Yet if day means a literal, 24-hour period, then "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female" makes perfect sense, because day six is closer to the beginning of the universe than it is to six thousand, or six million, or six billion years later.

Day six is within an acceptable period of time to be able to say "from the beginning" and include day six.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Acceptance of the 6 day story in Genesis 1.1-2.4a as literal history is a rejection of the second creation story which begins in 2.4b.

Denial of the fact that there are two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation is a rejection of the scriptures.

If someone writes a book about, say, George Washington, and writes a few paragraphs about his entire life, making note of key points in his life, and then writes several more chapters about lesser events, but doesn't include the same details that he wrote in the first few paragraphs, does that mean that Washington was two different people? Or does it mean that Washington one person, and that the author is keeping things relevant relative to what he's writing at the moment?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Haha... So there are contradictory versions of the ten commandments also? If you want help finding supposed contradictions, there are atheist web sites such as Talkorigins to help you.

People who want to find contradictions in scripture will find them.

God not only gives people the rope they need to hang themselves, He's also the Stumbling Block that will cause them to fall and break their necks from said rope.