The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Quotable Quotes by evolutionists for evolutionists


Charles Darwin, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species book 1858 – as quoted in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’ in The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts”.


Charles Darwin Introduction to Origin of Species, pp 2. Also quoted in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’ in The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived”.


Charles Darwin, ‘On the imperfection of the geological record’, Chapter x, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971, pp 292-293.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”


Dr. David M Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and palaeontology’ Field Musem of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50(1) January 1979, pp 25.
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”


Prof H S Lipton FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, ‘Origin of species’ in ‘Letters’, New Scientist, 14 May 1981 pp 452.
“Darwin’s book – On the Origin of Species – I find quite unsatisfactory. It says nothing about the origin of species, it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on “Difficulties on theory” and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does NOT exist in the fossil record”.


Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. ‘Evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (5) May 1977 pp 14.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record.”


Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The Major Features of Evolution’ Columbia University Press, New York, 1953 pp 360.
“It remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”


Professor Ronald R West Ph D., (Palaeontology and Geology), Professor of Palaeobiology, Kansas State University, ‘Palaeoecology and uniformitarianism’ Compass vol. 45 May 1968 pp 216.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”


Prof.E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK, ‘Evolution in contemporary Botanical Thought, Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961 pp 97.
“Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm have come from a common ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most (of us) would break down before an inquisition.”


Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London 1971 pp xi.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in Special Creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”

(PLEASE NOTE:- That quote was from 1971 – I can NOW confirm that the latest breakthroughs in Molecular Biology and Intelligent Design Research HAS settled the issue – in favour of Special Direct Creation).


Dr. David B. Kitts Ph D (Zoology), School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. ‘Palaeontology and evolutionary theory’. Evolution vol. 28 September 1974, pp 466.
“Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.”


Prof. Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology, Stanford University and L Charles Birch, Professor of Biology, University of Sydney ‘Evolutionary history and population biology’. Nature vol. 214 22 April 1967 pp 352.
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity.”


Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University in a speech in October 1983, as reported in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’ in The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“We’re not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever – we are what we are.”


Dr. Loren Eiseley Ph.D. (anthropology), ‘The secret of life’ in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957.
“With the failure of these many efforts (to synthesise life) evolutionary science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, (evolutionary) science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it’s own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proven to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”


Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, in ‘Evolution of Living Organisms' Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp 88.
“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve.
This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious or general; second, because its conclusions does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.


Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol 117 no 2 pp 213-219 2004.
“Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks – almost by definition – are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality – with purposeful intelligence……….
For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.”

J C

Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by J C
If The Vatican DID believe in evolution at the time, then they kept it very quiet – and Michelangelo didn’t include any APES in the painting!!!
JC, I think you may be onto something here. That is probably exactly what happened. Good we can agree on something.

Unfortunately, we don’t agree – whatever The Vatican may or may not have privately believed is total conjecture – the important thing was what they PUBLICLY pronounced – which was a belief in Special Direct Creation, up to the 1950’s at least.
The fact that the Sistine Chapel shows various scenes from Genesis proves that The Vatican’s public position was fully supportive of Special Divine Creation.

The apparent recent public conversion of The Vatican to Darwinian Evolution is therefore all the more surprising – especially in view of the severe scientific problems that Darwin himself had with ‘molecules to Man’ evolution, as my posting above illustrates.

Asiaprod

J C wrote:

Unfortunately, we don’t agree

Damn, and just when I thought we were making progress.

J C wrote:

whatever The Vatican may or may not have privately believed is total conjecture

It seems that you are pretty sure on what they believed from your posts...do you have inside information.

J C wrote:

the important thing was what they PUBLICLY pronounced

Really, thats a very weak argument, how many times have they been caught out where their public face and private face were 180 degrees out of sync. In case you need a nudge, think Fines report.

J C wrote:

The fact that the Sistine Chapel shows various scenes from Genesis proves that The Vatican’s public position was fully supportive of Special Divine Creation.

It does not, not by a long shot and it also does not support you arguments.

J C wrote:

The apparent recent public conversion of The Vatican to Darwinian Evolution is therefore all the more surprising

Not at all, what is surprising is you as a scientist are not prepared to accept Darwin but are prepared to put your neck on the line for a book that was never meant to be taken that literally and was written for people who had not the understanding that we have today. That is what is surprising.

J C wrote:

especially in view of the severe scientific problems that Darwin himself had with ‘molecules to Man’ evolution, as my posting above illustrates.

JC, I do not mean in anyway to demean you , but INHO NONE of your postings have illustrates this.

JustHalf

I'd just like to add that NO SCIENTIST in the field believes in evolution exactly as Darwin described. Our understanding of evolution has come on leaps and bounds in the last 150 years.

That Darwin wasn't certain on parts of his own theory doesn't in any way invalidate the entire field. That's like people dismissing the whole concept of gravity because Newtonian physics don't hold 100% of the time.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by J C
The fact that the Sistine Chapel shows various scenes from Genesis proves that The Vatican’s public position was fully supportive of Special Divine Creation.
It does not, not by a long shot and it also does not support you arguments.

OK, so we have a scene painted in the

Excelsior

JC wrote:

Why they would be "voicing strong criticism" of Bible-believing Christians is also anybody’s guess!!!!

You voice strong criticism of me, a Bible believing Christian, because I don't view it the same way as you. (!!! EXCLAMATION MARK !!!)

Why do you do that?

J C

Excelsior wrote:

You voice strong criticism of me, a Bible believing Christian, because I don't view it the same way as you. (!!! EXCLAMATION MARK !!!)

Why do you do that?

I didn't voice any criticism of you personally.

Excelsior

When Pope Benedict XVI sends you a poison letter, come finish that argument JC.

robindch

JC, Woflsbane -

I sit in something close to a limp awe of your verbal dexterity.

Leaving aside the Genesis contradictions which were ignored the last time 'round, you say that Genesis is true because it's written in the bible.

Then, some while later, we hear of a sword-bearing Jesus threatening all that he's "come to set a man at variance against his father, brother, etc, etc", and telling people, under threat of burning in hell, to think of themselves first, ahead of their wife, kids, parents and friends whom one is generally enjoined to honor elsewhere.

And suddenly the meaning of the bible switches, from the unimpeachable vessel of irrefutable and literal truths, to a weak and mushy thing, in need of interpretation and the odd right-angle bend here and there.

In all honesty, have either of you ever questioned anything you believe? Even once?

wolfsbane

Robindch said:
Leaving aside the Genesis contradictions which were ignored the last time 'round

I thought I had dealt with your 'contradictions' - maybe you didn't like the answers?

we hear of a sword-bearing Jesus threatening all that he's "come to set a man at variance against his father, brother, etc, etc",

The 'sword' was the antagonism His truth brought upon Himself and His followers, not any violence He or they would do. He specifically forbade even defensive violence in response to His arrest.

and telling people, under threat of burning in hell, to think of themselves first, ahead of their wife, kids, parents and friends whom one is generally enjoined to honor elsewhere.

As already pointed out, it was not themselves they were to put first, but Christ:
Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

from the unimpeachable vessel of irrefutable and literal truths, to a weak and mushy thing, in need of interpretation and the odd right-angle bend here and there.

As I said, no Christian believes all the Bible is to be taken literally. Narrative, metaphor, etc. are used as in any communication. The issue regarding theistic evolution centred on whether the seemingly literal interpretation of Genesis by the New Testament writers must be taken metaphorically. I asked the theistic evolutionists to justify that by exegeting those texts to offer an explanation that held Genesis as a metaphor but prevented the deity of Christ being reduced to the same.

You did see the comments of Jesus and the apostles on Genesis? Do you agree that they appear to hold Genesis literally, building ethical precepts upon actual events? Do you not see that if we insist those words are metaphorical, then there can be no reason to insist Jesus' and the apostles' presentation of Christ as God not also be metaphorical?

In all honesty, have either of you ever questioned anything you believe? Even once?

Yes, I have questioned my beliefs on several doctrines of Scripture many times. That led me to change some of them. For example, I once believed in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture - now I see that the Church goes through the end-time Tribulation. I used to believe in a thousand year reign of Christ on earth following His return - now I think that is figurative of this present gospel age. I am open to persuasion. Here are real difficulties of literal vs. figurative; they are given in prophecies that both sides acknowledge contain literal and metaphoric. It is a matter of sorting out which is which. Unlike the Genesis interpretation given in the New Testament, where the context is solidly literal.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

I am open to persuasion.

Unlike the Genesis interpretation given in the New Testament, where the context is solidly literal.

That sounds very much to me like a contradiction in terms. How can you be open to persuasion when you have firmly clossed the door on evolution. All you have left is a one-sided argument. You paint yourself into a corner and have no recourse other that maintain your stance. That is not being open to persuasion, IMHO

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:
That sounds very much to me like a contradiction in terms. How can you be open to persuasion when you have firmly clossed the door on evolution. All you have left is a one-sided argument. You paint yourself into a corner and have no recourse other that maintain your stance. That is not being open to persuasion, IMHO

I have also firmly closed the door on Christ being a Martian. The thing I 'know', my presupposition if you like, is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. It reveals the truth about whatever it asserts. So you will see I cannot be open to anything it clearly denies. I am open to persuasion on things that are not so clear.

I'm sure you are the same about things you 'know', eg., black is not white, your personal identity, the number of fingers on your hand. If these things are open to question, there is little point doing the questioning, for reality itself then cannot be known.

J C

Quote JustHalf
That Darwin wasn't certain on parts of his own theory doesn't in any way invalidate the entire field. That's like people dismissing the whole concept of gravity because Newtonian physics don't hold 100% of the time.

Could I borrow your analogy, and ask how many people would believe Newton if Apples were ALWAYS observed to NOT fall to Earth?


Quote Excelsior
You voice strong criticism of me, a Bible believing Christian, because I don't view it the same way as you.

I have NEVER voiced any criticism of other Bible Believing Christians.
Indeed as a sinner saved by God’s Grace, I know that Jesus Christ came to save and not to condemn anybody who places his or her faith in Jesus and believes on Him.

As a Bible Believing Christian, Excelsior, would you please tell me what you understand to be the meaning of the word “DAY” in following passage of Holy Scripture :-
“But the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (Ex 20:11 NIV).

Also please explain what you believe the words “at the beginning of Creation” actually mean. These words were spoken by Jesus Christ about the creation of Mankind in Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female.” (NIV).

I also look forward to the Pope, or indeed yourself, explaining the theological reasons for the Vatican’s apparent ‘about turn’ from its strong Creationist position up to the 1950’s to it’s current “stout defence of Charles Darwin (and its) voicing of strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution” to quote a recent Irish Independent report on the matter.

What exactly IS the Vatican’s position on the ‘origins issue’ – and is it true, as other media reports indicate, that there is currently a major debate between Creationists and Evolutionists within Roman Catholicism?

Excelsior

JC, the Pope has actually never made me a representative of him. As someone who isn't part of his church I would be an unusual choice.

As someone employed in theological work for an evangelical organisation, I would in fact be a bizarre choice. So I'll just leave that invite of yours alone.

slipss

just read the hole 14 pages there, and it was all really interesting, good views from both sides if a little dismisive of each others view and proofs at times. So I just thought I'd add my two cents.

I personally have great difficulty believing in any thing without solid proof. However I was raised a Catholic and so have had Christian views imbedded in myself from a very young age. I also went on the study evolution, physics, biolodgy and theolodgy but from reading your posts it seems to a much lesser degree than a lot of you.

So at present I find myself really wanting to believe in God against the lack of proof I have seen. My current personal theory one the creation of life, the only one that satisfies my varios beliefs, is as follows without going into too much detail

That the earth was a lifeless ball of elements, chemicals, metals ect and over the course of millions of years these chemicals were mixxed into billions of different combinations until finally, although virtually mathematically impossible the right combination of chemicals bounded, reacted and effected each other to produce the base of life and then began to evolve and change to adapt to changing enviroment and to cope with the lack of space and sustanance in certain evironments. Leading to all the varriations of life we have today.

Although this is pretty much just evolutionary theory. I like to think that with out the hand of God in the begining willing the right combination of elements and chemicals and heat and radiation ect into perfect sync at the perfect time in the perfect place then the Earth might have missed its chance.

Although from previous posts it seems most of you will disagree with this theory, It hasn't been but forward in 14 pages of text so I felt it was worth stating.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
How can you be open to persuasion when you have firmly closed the door on evolution. All you have left is a one-sided argument. You paint yourself into a corner and have no recourse other that maintain your stance. That is not being open to persuasion, IMHO

As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. I am also acutely aware that some incorrect interpretations of scripture have been made in the past.

As the Word of God is present in both the Bible and in all of Creation, neither can contradict the other – therefore when an apparent conflict arises this is due to EITHER a misinterpretation of scripture OR an erroneous scientific conclusion.

When such a conflict arises (as in the ‘origins issue’) I study both the latest scientific research (from ALL sources) on the matter as well as examining what the Bible says. I am always open to the reality that the conflict may be either a misinterpretation of scripture OR an erroneous scientific conclusion and I therefore HAVE approached this issue with an open mind to either possibility.

As a scientist I am open to ALL Scientific Theories i.e. PRECISE descriptions and explanations of OBSERVED phenomena that are accessible to TESTING by repeatable observation or experimentation. I therefore never firmly close the door on anything, including evolution, unlike many secular evolutionists, who appear to have firmly closed the door on Direct Creation, despite a significant body of empirical and circumstantial evidence in support of it’s veracity.

I am unaware of any precise description of ‘molecules to Man’ evolution (or it’s constituent stages) that has been proven by empirical observations or experimentation. As a scientist, I therefore must classify evolution as a speculative belief system – while remaining OPEN to ANY scientific evidence that may be presented in it’s support. Please inform me of any such evidence that you may be aware of and I promise that I WILL evaluate it.

Quote Excelsior
As someone employed in theological work for an evangelical organisation ......

As an Evangelical, Bible Believing Christian and Theistic Evolutionist could I ask you AGAIN to answer the following two simple questions and explain how they are consistent with evolution :-

1. Please tell me what you understand to be the meaning of the word “DAY” in following passage of Scripture :-
“But the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (Ex 20:11 NIV).

2. Please explain what you believe the words “at the beginning of Creation” actually mean. These words were spoken by Jesus Christ about the creation of Mankind in Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female.” (NIV).

J C

Quote Slipss
That the earth was a lifeless ball of elements, chemicals, metals ect and over the course of millions of years these chemicals were mixxed into billions of different combinations until finally, although virtually mathematically impossible the right combination of chemicals bounded, reacted and effected each other to produce the base of life and then began to evolve and change to adapt to changing enviroment and to cope with the lack of space and sustanance in certain evironments. Leading to all the varriations of life we have today.

Although this is pretty much just evolutionary theory. I like to think that with out the hand of God in the begining willing the right combination of elements and chemicals and heat and radiation ect into perfect sync at the perfect time in the perfect place then the Earth might have missed its chance.

Your words above pretty well summarises the current Theistic Evolutionary Position. Could I point out two things about this position:

1. You will look in vain for any confirmation of these ideas within the covers of The Bible, which is God’s infallible Word on the subject.
2. You will also look in vain for any repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) evidence that supports a ‘molecules to Man’ evolutionary belief.

Your statement that evolution is “virtually mathematically impossible” should leave out the word “virtually” – evolution has been proven to BE mathematically impossible.

Jesus Christ the Alpha and the Omega WAS present at the moment of Creation and this same Jesus Christ suffered the indignity of becoming a man and dying on a cross to repair the gap that sin causes between God and Man. ALL that He asks you and I to do in return is to repent of our sins and believe on Him.

God just wasn’t there at the beginning as you have stated, and He didn’t just start some “evolutionary ball rolling” – He created ALL of the amazing purposeful genetic information that Modern Science now knows to be present in every living cell.

All of life and the amazing Universe that we see around us declare the Glory of God – who LOVED you and me so much that He died that we both might live eternally with Him in Heaven.

All you need to do is say but the words “I believe on Jesus Christ” and you will be saved.

Excelsior

If Robindch just wrote those words, would that do JC? Cos you know, I think I could convince him it was worth the risk. I really do wonder what world you occupy that justifaction by faith alone becomes justification by vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence.

I believe that the word Yorn used in Genesis 1-3 refers to eon. I believe that the use of the word Yorn, which in other contexts can mean day is therefore figurative.

As it is a figurative usage in Genesis, so too is it a figurative parallel drawn in Exodus 22.

I believe that Jesus is the exact representation of God of the Father and all that comes with that JC. I also think that he lived amongst primitive, oppressed Palestinian Jews and taught them a message of liberation into the Kingdom of God. His point was not to lecture on science and his hearers could not grasp science. So I understand the passage you refer to as a reference to the creation of humankind. In simple terms, humans came in 2 flavours from the get-go, cos God wanted it that way.

So let me sum this up for you:
Passage 1: Figurative is as figurative does
Passage 2: Jesus says "I made you guys the way you are. Go me. Now follow me."

J C

Quote Excelsior
I really do wonder what world you occupy that justification by faith alone becomes justification by vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence

Yes indeed, we are justified by faith in the Word of God in the Bible and in all of Creation – but certainly not in “vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence” (though they may both be important in proclaiming and studying the Word of God respectively).


Quote Excelsior
I believe that the word Yorn used in Genesis 1-3 refers to eon. I believe that the use of the word Yorn, which in other contexts can mean day is therefore figurative.

If Yom DOES mean Eon in Genesis 1-3, how do you explain the glaring anomalies between the description of the ‘6 Eons of evolution’ supposedly in Gen 1 and The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence?


Quote Excelsior
As it is a figurative usage in Genesis, so too is it a figurative parallel drawn in Exodus 22.

OK, So taking this interpretation Ex 20:8-11 would read as follows:-
“Remember the Sabbath EON by keeping it holy, Six EONS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh EON is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six EONS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh EON” (NIV).

Sounds like a very LONG week – and a very LONG Sabbath!


Quote Excelsior
I also think that he (Jesus Christ) lived amongst primitive, oppressed Palestinian Jews and taught them a message of liberation into the Kingdom of God.

And presumably you also believe that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus for the equally oppressed ‘primitive people’ who built the Pyramids!!

However, the problem with this ‘primitive people’ theory is that very rapidly, the entire Word of God become something written for ‘primitive people’ – with a consequential conclusion in relation to the ‘primitive’ nature of it’s author and indeed anybody else who bothers to read it.


Quote Excelsior
His point was not to lecture on science and his hearers could not grasp science.

Could I point out that it would be just as easy for a putative ‘primitive person’ to grasp the idea that we are all descended from pond-scum as it would be to understand that we were Directly Created by God.
There was also no need for Jesus and Moses to COMPLICATE the simple message that all life is descended from pond-scum with a VERY COMPLEX ACCOUNT of the sequence of Special Creation – unless it was TRUE.

Equally, God could have just said that the Fourth Commandment demanded that everyone rest on every seventh day as a ‘health and safety’ issue. However, He DOESN’T do this, but links the Seven Day Week DIRECTLY to His Creation WEEK – why would He do that unless Creation Week existed and it WAS a Seven Day Week as well?

Quote Excelsior
I understand the passage you refer to as a reference to the creation of humankind. In simple terms, humans came in 2 flavours from the get-go, cos God wanted it that way.

The passage that I referred to was Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them MALE AND FEMALE.” (NIV).
This was a direct reference to Gen 1:27 “So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created HIM, male and female He created THEM.

“At the beginning of Creation” can ONLY have one logical meaning, which is that the Creation of Mankind was at the very start of Creation – and NOT after billions of years.

You are also not FULLY correct in your statement that “humans came in 2 flavours from the get-go”.
Mk10:6 is directly dependent on Gen 1:27 for it’s FULL meaning.
Gen 1:27 confirms that the sequence of the creation of Mankind was firstly a single man Adam “in the image of God He created HIM” and subsequently Eve “male and female He created THEM. This sequence is also confirmed in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:21-22.


Quote Excelsior
Jesus says "I made you guys the way you are. Go me. Now follow me."

Truly a ‘simple statement for simple folk’.

But how do you explain what Jesus Christ ACTUALLY said in Mk 10:6 “but at the BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female.” (NIV).
Why would Jesus bother to make an issue of the fact that Mankind was created at the same time as the World was created if it was unimportant or indeed untrue?

Excelsior

J C wrote:

Yes indeed, we are justified by faith in the Word of God in the Bible and in all of Creation – but certainly not in “vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence” (though they may both be important in proclaiming and studying the Word of God respectively).

I'd always thought I was justified by faith in Jesus, not by faith in justification by faith.

JC wrote:

If Yom DOES mean Eon in Genesis 1-3, how do you explain the glaring anomalies between the description of the ‘6 Eons of evolution’ supposedly in Gen 1 and The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence?

I will repeat this again. I do not think Genesis 1-3 is particularly concerned with the mechanics of Creation.

JC wrote:

OK, So taking this interpretation Ex 20:8-11 would read as follows:-
“Remember the Sabbath EON by keeping it holy, Six EONS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh EON is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six EONS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh EON” (NIV).

Well it would only read that way if you tried to take my initial position of:

Figruative -> Figurative

and tried to read it as:

Figurative -> Literal

JC wrote:

... He DOESN’T do this, but links the Seven Day Week DIRECTLY to His Creation WEEK – why would He do that unless Creation Week existed and it WAS a Seven Day Week as well?

Why do we have Sabbath? Because God teaches us that taking time out to savour our work is good, just as he did. It has the nice side effect of fitting in with our human physical constraints. Moses, author of both Genesis 1-3 and Exodus 22 links these 2 ideas, God's appreciative rest after Creation with our appreciative rest after our toil and creation. There is nothing inconsistent in me saying that the allusion is a strict parrallelism between 2 figurative constructs.

Let me be clear again for anyone reading in to this debate. God, through his author Moses, links the rest of the Creation week with our week because we are different from all other created things in that we ourselves have the power to create. And like our Creator, we should take time to appreciate our (and more importantly his) efforts on a regular basis.

JC wrote:

And presumably you also believe that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus for the equally oppressed ‘primitive people’ who built the Pyramids!!

The people who built the Pyramids were primitive. As were the people who built Newgrange. Only someone who has utterly absorbed the myth of progress that underlies the modernist Enlightenment era project (of which I classify Creation Science as a perverse off-shoot) could see this as an insult. The people of Jesus' time were no less intelligent or potentially capable than we are today. But they were sociologically primitive.

When I use primitive, I am not insulting, but describing. The people of Jesus' time were pre-Empricism JC. They could understand evolution just fine if someone sat them down and began at the beginning but they didn't have the framework through which to ask scientific questions. The scientific method had not yet been developed/discovered.

JC wrote:

However, the problem with this ‘primitive people’ theory is that very rapidly, the entire Word of God become something written for ‘primitive people’ – with a consequential conclusion in relation to the ‘primitive’ nature of it’s author and indeed anybody else who bothers to read it.

Well you would be mis-interpreting my words then. I believe the Bible to be the authoritative and inspired communication of the Creator God. It is relevant to everyone and it is written to apply to everyone. Even people born before or outside the influence of Newton. It is for this reason and not some oversight, that it does not answer scientific questions.

JC wrote:

Could I point out that it would be just as easy for a putative ‘primitive person’ to grasp the idea that we are all descended from pond-scum as it would be to understand that we were Directly Created by God.

We were directly created by God JC. At least, I think we were. But like a potter forming clay (to use a Biblical illustration), God used the pottery wheel of evolution to directly form us.

The reason, once again, that Jesus does not get into discussions about double helixes and chromosomes is that it is irrelevant to his mission. We are here. We are burdened. We are not in relationship with God. Jesus addressing these things does not require him to lay out excercise patterns for us, the correct method for building our houses or the evolution of our genetics.

JC wrote:

There was also no need for Jesus and Moses to COMPLICATE the simple message that all life is descended from pond-scum with a VERY COMPLEX ACCOUNT of the sequence of Special Creation – unless it was TRUE.

This very complex account of "Special Creation" (like the other Creations are hum-drum?) takes just over 2000 words. It is structured very deliberately as an allegorical poem marked by extremely sparse writing. It is fantastical to claim that Genesis 1-3 complicates Creation, on a par with arguing for a version of intellectual history based on the paintings of a private chapel in Rome!

JC wrote:

The passage that I referred to was Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them MALE AND FEMALE.” (NIV).
This was a direct reference to Gen 1:27 “So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created HIM, male and female He created THEM.

“At the beginning of Creation” can ONLY have one logical meaning, which is that the Creation of Mankind was at the very start of Creation – and NOT after billions of years.

I know the passage JC. Jesus isn't talking here about Creation at all. He is talking about divorce. It is funny, is it not, that the Creator God incarnated as man would support his "Special Creation" with a half sentence in a teaching on divorce?

As I understand it, there is another logical interpretation of the sentence you quite arbitrarily throw at me. That is, the focus of the sentence is the creation of mankind. At the beginning of this creation, God decided the form of mankind and made them different from all else, in that they were of his image.


I said>>> Jesus says "I made you guys the way you are. Go me. Now follow me."

JC wrote:

Truly a ‘simple statement for simple folk’.

But I don't think that the people Jesus was talking to were any different or less intellectually capable than the people today. You have so comepletely misunderstood me once again.


I understand Mark 10:6 to be a part of Jesus' teaching on divorce. Like all the teaching on sexuality in the Bible, this teaching is grounded in the divine image-bearingness of humans. Jesus is saying that at the beginnign of humankind, we were created differently to other things and this feeds into his teaching on divorce. I don't think it has anything to do with "Special Creation", 6 days, Charles Darwin or Intelligent Design.

robindch

> We were directly created by God JC. At least, I think we were.

Excelsior, I admire your honesty here -- this is the first time I can remember someone having the courage to say straight out that their beliefs are exactly that -- beliefs.

Oh, for more of this honesty, and less of the interminable dogmatism, JC.

slipss

Excelsior (I hope I spelt that right) thanks for responding, if any thing you have re-affirmed my faith in mankind and "god". J C please stop completely disregarding others opinions, "turn the other cheek" ect ect, if any thing u are hindering your cause not helping it although I get the feeling your heart is in the right place, buy surely u cannot justify ignoring proven scientific theory (i know PROVEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a contradiction) is there not room for both science and faith in this ever accelerating world??

J C

Quote Excelsior
I'd always thought I was justified by faith in Jesus, not by faith in justification by faith.

Jesus Christ IS The Word of God as confirmed in Jn 1:1 and Jn 1:14 – so justification by faith in Jesus is by definition also justification by faith in the Word of God.


Quote Excelsior
I will repeat this again. I do not think Genesis 1-3 is particularly concerned with the mechanics of Creation.

Genesis 1-2 certainly gives quite a detailed sketch of Direct Divine Creation – in fact it is ALL about describing the sequence/mechanics of Creation.

It bears no relationship to the mechanics of a ‘Creation’ by any possible Evolutionary Sequence all right.


Quote Excelsior
Originally Posted by JC
OK, So taking this interpretation Ex 20:8-11 would read as follows:-
“Remember the Sabbath EON by keeping it holy, Six EONS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh EON is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six EONS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh EON” (NIV).

Well it would only read that way if you tried to take my initial position of:

Figruative -> Figurative

and tried to read it as:

Figurative -> Literal

Could I remind you that we are taking about the 4th Commandment of God here – and like all Law it IS literal. Try convincing a Garda that a 50 KPH Limit is figurative and see what I mean.

Reading it as Figurative / Figurative is therefore a non-runner.
Reading it as figurative / Literal is an oxymoron as you have admitted above.
Therefore the ONLY way that it can be sensibly read is Literal / Literal. Genesis 1 and the 10 Commandments are therefore BOTH literal statements of God’s will.


Quote Excelsior
Why do we have Sabbath? Because God teaches us that taking time out to savour our work is good, just as he did. It has the nice side effect of fitting in with our human physical constraints. Moses, author of both Genesis 1-3 and Exodus 22 links these 2 ideas, God's appreciative rest after Creation with our appreciative rest after our toil and creation. There is nothing inconsistent in me saying that the allusion is a strict parrallelism between 2 figurative constructs.

But the 4th Commandment wasn’t a figurative construct but literal LAW spoken physically by God to Moses.

If they are BOTH literal constructs as logic would suggest, then Creation Week WAS seven literal days just like our present seven day week.


Quote Excelsior
Let me be clear again for anyone reading in to this debate. God, through his author Moses, links the rest of the Creation week with our week because we are different from all other created things in that we ourselves have the power to create. And like our Creator, we should take time to appreciate our (and more importantly his) efforts on a regular basis.

No problems with your conclusion above.
However, God didn’t merely link His Creation Week with our Week – He emphasised that both were SEVEN DAY weeks – and as I have pointed out above only a Literal – Literal reading can make sense of Gen 1 and Ex 20:8-11.

Quote Excelsior
The people who built the Pyramids were primitive. As were the people who built Newgrange. Only someone who has utterly absorbed the myth of progress that underlies the modernist Enlightenment era project (of which I classify Creation Science as a perverse off-shoot) could see this as an insult. The people of Jesus' time were no less intelligent or potentially capable than we are today. But they were sociologically primitive.

The people who built the Pyramids and Newgrange were engineers of unparalleled ability and knowledge – who were sociologically very sophisticated as evidenced by the obvious organisation of hundreds, if not thousands of people in these construction projects.
Try placing a modern engineer in a field in County Meath and ask him/her to build a replica of Newgrange and they would find it very difficult, even with access to modern technology and organised labour.
Without modern technology, I think that they would probably ‘throw their hands in the air’ and take the next bus back to Dublin, if that is not mixing my metaphors!!

I certainly haven’t absorbed any myths of our so called progress, but I do think that it is patronising to any people to state that they are incapable of comprehending a simple statement that they are descended from Pond-scum, if it was true.
It is also illogical to claim that a relatively COMPLEX account of the sequence of Special Creation (as in Genesis) would have been easier to understand than a relatively SIMPLE statement that the Universe originated in a Big Bang and all of life evolved gradually from Pond Scum.


Quote Excelsior
When I use primitive, I am not insulting, but describing. The people of Jesus' time were pre-Empricism JC. They could understand evolution just fine if someone sat them down and began at the beginning but they didn't have the framework through which to ask scientific questions. The scientific method had not yet been developed/discovered.

But God DID start Gen 1:1 by telling everybody what happened starting at THE VERY BEGINNING.
You can say black is white if you like. Calling an objectively sophisticated people ‘primitive’ is certainly erroneous.
As I have previously pointed out, evolution is not scientific in any meaningful sense of the word – and I am supported in this conclusion by other EVOLUTIONARY scientists, as my previous quotes from these people have demonstrated.
Equally, nobody needs much of a mental framework to understand a concept of Pond-scum evolving into Man – a great leap of faith perhaps, but little else.
The development of the scientific method has had little impact on the Ancient Greek concept of ‘molecules to Man’ evolution, which has never been precisely defined and doesn’t have any repeatably observable evidence in support of its veracity.


Quote Excelsior
Well you would be mis-interpreting my words then. I believe the Bible to be the authoritative and inspired communication of the Creator God. It is relevant to everyone and it is written to apply to everyone. Even people born before or outside the influence of Newton. It is for this reason and not some oversight, that it does not answer scientific questions

The scientific study of Creation DIDN’T begin with Newton. Human Beings, from Moses to Aristotle to Da Vinci precisely described and studied different aspects of Creation.
Could I suggest that “the authoritative and inspired communication of the Creator God” should by definition be consistent and TRUE. Could I also suggest that such communication would not sacrifice accuracy for poetry/simplicity as your thesis seems to suggest in relation to Genesis.

Could I remind you that evolution was promoted by the Ancient Greeks long before Our Lord’s Time and the Greeks didn’t require a Molecular Biologist’s scientific vocabulary to discuss evolution – so ditto for Jesus Christ and His audience at the time, if He knew evolution to be true.

J C

Quote Excelsior
We were directly created by God JC. At least, I think we were. But like a potter forming clay (to use a Biblical illustration), God used the pottery wheel of evolution to directly form us.

Evolution isn’t a direct creation process analogous to a potter’s wheel, it is more like throwing vast quantities of muck at a wall and hoping that some of it will stick and eventually produce a Human!!!
Why would God bother with such an obviously wasteful, inefficient mechanism based squarely on cut-throat competition and death – and if He did why didn’t He tell us?


Quote Excelsior
The reason, once again, that Jesus does not get into discussions about double helixes and chromosomes is that it is irrelevant to his mission. We are here. We are burdened. We are not in relationship with God. Jesus addressing these things does not require him to lay out excercise patterns for us, the correct method for building our houses or the evolution of our genetics.

I accept that Jesus didn’t go into a discussion on DNA – in relation to either Creation OR Evolution – so this fact cannot help us in deciding the origins question in favour of either mechanism.

For whatever reason, Jesus DID confirm the veracity of the Creation of Mankind at the BEGINNING of Creation – as distinct from our supposed evolution millions of years after the BEGINNING if Creation – as evolutionists would have us believe.

Today, Creation Scientists and Evolutionary Biologists both study Chromosomes, DNA and the other amazing miracles of Creation. The publication of the latest breakthroughs in our scientific understanding of these phenomena is of interest to most people living in the 21st Century. Unfortunately for evolution and it’s supporters, these breakthroughs indicate that a massive intelligence instantaneously Created ALL of these living systems.


Quote Excelsior
This very complex account of "Special Creation" (like the other Creations are hum-drum?) takes just over 2000 words. It is structured very deliberately as an allegorical poem marked by extremely sparse writing.

You have proven my point, that an account of ‘evolution from Pond-scum to Man’ and ‘the Big Bang’ could be given in less than 20 words – so IF the intended audience WERE ‘primitive people’ and evolution WAS true why didn’t Genesis simply state that the Universe started in a Big Bang and we are all descended from Pond-scum. 20 simple words would have done it. However, God DIDN’T do this – He gave us a precise account of the sequence of His Creation of the Universe and all life over SIX DAYS.


Quote Excelsior
It is fantastical to claim that Genesis 1-3 complicates Creation,

You’re the one claiming that evolution (which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible) isn’t there because of the inability of people to understand it, due to it’s complexity – I merely pointed out that the Creation Account is objectively more complex than a simple (evolutionary) statement that we are all descended from Pond scum – and the ONLY logical reason that such a statement (or a similar one confirming evolution) wasn’t made in Genesis is that it wasn’t true.


Quote Excelsior
on a par with arguing for a version of intellectual history based on the paintings of a private chapel in Rome!

The 500 year old paintings in a very PUBLIC Church under the direct control and authority of the Vatican MUST by all logic indicate that the Roman Catholic Church once believed that the subject matter in these paintings was both important enough to adorn such an important building and TRUE.
As the subject matter in these scenes depicts the literal Genesis account of Special Divine Creation this logically means that the Roman Catholic Church held Creation to be TRUE at the time that the paintings were commissioned.
I also did quote directly from a written document that confirmed that the RCC teaching position was Literalist Creationist up to the 1950’s at least. You haven’t proffered ANY evidence to the contrary and scoffing at me certainly ISN’T evidence.


Quote Excelsior
I know the passage JC. Jesus isn't talking here about Creation at all. He is talking about divorce. It is funny, is it not, that the Creator God incarnated as man would support his "Special Creation" with a half sentence in a teaching on divorce?

The passage that I referred to was Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them MALE AND FEMALE.” (NIV).

Jesus was emphasising the fact that Marriage (and not divorce) just like Mankind WAS Created by God at the BEGINNING of Creation.

Quote Excelsior
As I understand it, there is another logical interpretation of the sentence you quite arbitrarily throw at me. That is, the focus of the sentence is the creation of mankind. At the beginning of this creation, God decided the form of mankind and made them different from all else, in that they were of his image.

Now YOU are even using the words “at the beginning of this Creation”, adding in an extra-Biblical word (this), but still failing to accept what “at the beginning of Creation” in Genesis obviously means.


Quote Excelsior
I understand Mark 10:6 to be a part of Jesus' teaching on divorce. Like all the teaching on sexuality in the Bible, this teaching is grounded in the divine image-bearingness of humans. Jesus is saying that at the beginnign of humankind, we were created differently to other things and this feeds into his teaching on divorce. I don't think it has anything to do with "Special Creation", 6 days, Charles Darwin or Intelligent Design.

Jesus was referring to the Divine basis of MARRIAGE which is an institution Created by God during Creation Week and confirmed as such in Gen 2:24.

The fact that Jesus confirmed that Mankind (and the institution of marriage) were created by God at the beginning of creation – DOES have profound implications for the veracity of evolution. In fact, it is a straight denial of Darwinian Evolution – and it’s belief that Humans (and their marriage customs) emerged millions of years after “the beginning of Creation.”


Quote Excelsior
But I don't think that the people Jesus was talking to were any different or less intellectually capable than the people today. You have so completely misunderstood me once again.

So why call them ‘primitive people’ at all then.
The Genesis account WAS for ordinary people capable of fully understanding the concepts of Divine Special Creation or Evolution.
Gen 1 is a rational internally consistent account of Special Creation but it is a hopelessly mixed up account of any possible evolutionary sequence – and therefore an evolutionary interpretation MUST be wrong.


Quote Robin
Excelsior, I admire your honesty here -- this is the first time I can remember someone having the courage to say straight out that their beliefs are exactly that -- beliefs.

Oh, for more of this honesty, and less of the interminable dogmatism, JC.

Robin, I KNOW that God created the Universe and all life, I BELIEVE that Jesus Christ has saved me.
Neither are dogmatic (unfounded) statements.

If you really do want to see interminable dogma, Robin – just look at evolution – it’s full of it.


Quote Sipss
surely u cannot justify ignoring proven scientific theory (i know PROVEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a contradiction) is there not room for both science and faith in this ever accelerating world??

There is, of course room for both science and faith.
Science allows us examine and explain all sensory-accessible phenomena and their effects, while faith takes over where science leaves off.
Evolution is still firmly in the realm of faith.
If you have any observational or experimental evidence for ‘molecules to Man’ evolution and it can be repeatedly observed, please publish it – and a Nobel Prize will be winging its way to you.

Excelsior

On the issue of the 4th Commandment:

Literal laws arise from figurative concepts. Sabbath is a law, but it has its philosophical grounding in an illustration.

On the my use of the word "primitive":

You deliberately misinterpret my words. My point is that the society Jesus ministered in is classified by the term primitive. That is descriptive and in no way perjorative. I further elaborated to explain that his hearers were as intellectually capable as any of us today. Let me repeat: They could have understood evolution if you sat them down and taught them everything from Newton on, including the culture of questioning in which Empiricism exists which is the major block to a hypothetical time-travelling 2nd Temple Jew grasping modern science.
I have never read evolution summarised as "we are all descended from pond scum". So you are fighting a straw man there JC.

But once again, to hammer home the point: Desist from interpreting my use of the word primitive as an attempt to erroneously insult the hearers of Jesus.

JC wrote:

I also suggest that such communication would not sacrifice accuracy for poetry/simplicity

And here we get to the heart of the modernist myth that is Creation Science. In the mind of the Creation Scientist, who defines themselves entirely in terms of Enlightenment era categories, poetry is neccesarily "inaccurate" since it is not "scientific".

For anyone out there who cares to Google Mid-Term Break by Seamus Heaney, you can see how accurate and simple and true poetry can be. To claim that the structure and intention of Genesis is evidently poetic is to simultaneously and implicitly suggest accuracy and simplicity.

Evolution wasn't advocated by the Ancient Greeks. Once again you defeat a straw man. Some ancient Greeks in a pre-Empirical metaphysic advanced a developmental theory that has been termed "Evolution". What we are discussing here is the contemporary theory of evolution, which is in now way the same thing. Can I restate once again, I think Jesus and his followers and enemies could easily have grasped this contemporary theory if you sat them down and taught them painstakingly from the beginning. But it is not part of the Kingdom announcing and inaugurating agenda of Jesus Christ to invent and then teach biology.

JC wrote:

Why would God bother with such an obviously wasteful, inefficient mechanism based squarely on cut-throat competition and death – and if He did why didn’t He tell us?

Oh who are you man, to question the mind of God!

It is increasingly likely that He is using that process so best not question him JC. He didn't tell us as he didn't tell us anything about how to insulate houses or the best way to encrypt data or the best form of music. It is not relevant to his communication.

Genesis doesn't account for the laughable 20-word summary you insultingly offer up because Genesis 1-3 is not about the mechanics of Creation. It is about the intention of the Creator and the reason his loving relationship with us is broken and our world is in decay. Once again, the Bible is concerned with bigger issues than biology.

I find it hard to respond to your statements on the out-of-context quotation from Mark 10:6 because you make very little sense JC. If anyone wants to read how I and the vast majority of Christians interpret that passage (since interpretating by verse is a highway to fundamentalism) they can just look at what I wrote last night.

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Quote Excelsior
I'd always thought I was justified by faith in Jesus, not by faith in justification by faith.

Jesus Christ IS The Word of God as confirmed in Jn 1:1 and Jn 1:14 – so justification by faith in Jesus is by definition also justification by faith in the Word of God.

Holy crap. Although Jesus is "the Word", and we sometimes refer to the Bible as "the Word of God", these are two entirely seperate things.

Jesus isn't the Bible. When John talks about the Word, he's not talking about the Bible. We don't have a quadrinity of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the KJV.

Actually, there's something for you to mull over. When John talks about "the Word", does he mean a literal word? Is Jesus a literal word? If not, how can (by your standards) the first few chapters of John be true?

If Jesus is NOT a literal word, and the first few chapters of John ARE TRUE, then I don't see why you insist that Genesis cannot be true and not literal.

I do have to say that, whatever Greek scholars came up with, it was unlikely to have been available to the son of a carpenter and his working-class mates; so it's irrelevant to this debate.

And by word JC, will you stop misrepresenting Excelsior. He's a good friend of mine, and we have had many discussions about the myth of progress. I know where he stands, and it's nothing like what you describe.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

It is about the intention of the Creator and the reason his loving relationship with us is broken and our world is in decay. Once again, the Bible is concerned with bigger issues than biology.

OK, perhaps we can settle the issue of theistic evolution right here, on the subject of suffering and death. Theistic evolution believes there were millions of years of suffering and death, just like we experience today. They also believe that God was using metaphor in the Genesis account of Creation.

Now I'm sure most people would agree that while metaphor means something other that the literal sense, it must mean something. It is not used to merely fill a space. The God who gave us the Genesis account - whether it is metaphor or not - described His creation at its various stages as 'good', and 'very good'. So the God of theistic evolution wants us to understand that suffering and death, intrinsic parts of evolution, are 'very good'.

Two things about that cause me to reject it. The first is my own experience. Having witnessed the death of animals and birds, my soul cries out 'This is not right, this is not the way it was meant to be.' The death of men and women I loved imprinted that truth indelibly on my heart.

The second is the theology of the Bible. It tells us that every thing was created 'good', and suffering and death only came in with man's fall into sin. Death is an enemy.

So one can have theistic evolution or a good creation, but not both. To hold to theistic evolution one must set aside the concept of the wrongness of suffering and death.

Excelsior

That is a farily substantial criticism Wolfsbane but I do think I can offer something for you to consider.

The first is that while the death of even the smallest bird can be very traumatic, the New Testament clearly sanctions the killing and eating of all animals. God doesn't have a problem with death per sé, since all things must die. In a very real way, every single thing that lives, lives because something else dies. It is the context of death that counts.

The second thing is that in the Garden Adam and Eve are warned that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil will lead to death. Yet they don't die. They live on for a long time. The death they die is a spiritual one as the Fall affects the immortal soul and through that influences the physical world. I do not think that the Fall is metaphorical. I think the metaphor in Genesis 1-3 points to the very real literal fact of our broken relationship with God and the flawed, fractured sense of self we all suffer. The death that didn't happen before the Fall was the spiritual death that lies at the heart of the human condition and is summed up by Augustine's famous quote about the human heart never finding rest until it rests in Him.

That is how I understand it. Physical death can be wrong but it is also a natural course of things. Spiritual death however is always an abhorrence. Jesus says as much when he heals the paralytic through the roof but declares that forgiving the man's sin and restoring his rightful relationship with God is the greater miracle.

robindch

> Although Jesus is "the Word" [...]
> When John talks about "the Word", does he mean a literal word?

Interesting point, indirectly.

Within John's text, "word" is a direct translation of the greek λόγος ('logos'), but shorn of its original philosophical context which existed perhaps as ying to the yang of τέχνη ('techne').

The concept and scope of 'logos' is difficult to pin down because it was used to describe so many things by so many people, but roughly speaking, it refers to a heady mixture of study, thought, reason, justification, argument and ideas, or alternatively, any human activity/process which isn't specifically, teche, or a craft of the hands, or physical action of some form.

The logos-concept was lifted, as was much else in christianity, directly from Plato, and his Christ-like hero, Socrates who demonstrated in the Meno, Protagoras and elsewhere, the power and arguably the reality, of 'logos'.

wolfsbane

Excelsior

You are absolutely right about the most serious consequence of the Fall - spiritual death.

But that does not remove the fact that physical suffering and death are consequencies of the Fall, not its precursors. Scripture tells us that the rest of creation were made subject to suffering and death not for their own fault, but because Man fell:
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

God certainly accommodates our needs in this fallen world, in giving us flesh to eat. But it was not so from the beginning. From a world where animals were our lesser companions, it came to a place where they were our food and we a source of dread to them. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:1-3%20;&version=50;

Millions of years of this cannot be described as good by any stretch of language. The world will never be good again until all suffering and death are removed.

J C

Quote Excelsior
Literal laws arise from figurative concepts. Sabbath is a law, but it has its philosophical grounding in an illustration.

Literal Laws are ALWAYS based on literal concepts. A non-empirically based Law is unenforceable.
The 4th Commandment could be grounded in Divine Fiat, like the rest of the Commandments – but it is instead stated by God to be grounded in the fact of His Seven Day Creation Week.
It is special pleading of the highest degree to know that the word ‘Yom’ in Ex 20:8-10 is an ‘ordinary day’ and then to state that the IDENTICAL word ‘Yom’ in the next verse in Ex 20:11 means ‘eons of time’.
God doesn’t speak in riddles – if the seven day week and the 4th Commandment were based upon some putative ‘7 eons of evolutionary time’ then God would have made this clear in Ex 20:11 by at least using a different word for the supposed ‘Eons’ over which He supposedly evolved Mankind.


Quote Excelsior
My point is that the society Jesus ministered in is classified by the term primitive. That is descriptive and in no way perjorative. I further elaborated to explain that his hearers were as intellectually capable as any of us today. Let me repeat: They could have understood evolution if you sat them down and taught them everything from Newton on, including the culture of questioning in which Empiricism exists which is the major block to a hypothetical time-travelling 2nd Temple Jew grasping modern science.

The Word of God is eternal and universal. It applies to all peoples for all time – and it is NOT confined to an audience of 2nd Temple Judaism or any other ‘primitive people’ (however you define ‘primitive’).

If we accept for the sake of argument, your thesis that Genesis, Exodus and Jesus Christ’s own sermons were confined to constructs that their immediate audiences could understand – I still don’t accept that even these audiences couldn’t understand the concept of Theistic Evolution – and therefore the fact that ‘evolution’ isn't referred to anywhere in the Bible means that the concept isn't true – and NOT that it couldn’t be intellectually comprehended by ANYBODY.


Quote Excelsior
I have never read evolution summarised as "we are all descended from pond scum". So you are fighting a straw man there JC.

I share your belief that evolution has never been precisely defined – and that is one of the reasons why it is not accessible to the Scientific Method – and therefore is an un-scientific concept.

I would still contend that my summary of evolution as a belief ‘that Mankind slowly evolved from Pond-scum’ is a reasonably accurate statement of the essence of the concept of evolution.
If you have a better one please outline it.


Quote Excelsior
Originally Posted by JC
I also suggest that such communication would not sacrifice accuracy for poetry/simplicity

And here we get to the heart of the modernist myth that is Creation Science. In the mind of the Creation Scientist, who defines themselves entirely in terms of Enlightenment era categories,
Where do you get this stuff about Creation Science being a modernist myth – when the ‘mother and father’ of ALL modernist myths is actually Theistic Evolution.

Could I point out that Creation Scientists are conventional scientists of the highest calibre i.e. properly certified graduates of mainstream fully-accredited universities.
The fact that most of them are based in America, where it is a criminal offence to claim scientific qualifications that are not from fully-accredited institutions, means that you can rely on the fact that they are properly and conventionally qualified.
Most Creation Scientists carry on with their ordinary conventional scientific work in their ‘day jobs’ and pursue their interest in Creation Science during their spare time.
As conventional scientists, Creation Scientist demand the same scientific rigour from all research into the ‘origins issue’ as they do from all of the other areas of conventional science that they are involved in.
They have discovered that when evolution is assessed on this basis it doesn’t meet the criteria of precise definition and testability that the Scientific Method demands.


Quote Excelsior
poetry is neccesarily "inaccurate" since it is not "scientific".

Could I also say that I would have no problem if God wrote Genesis in Rhyming Slang, Iambic Pentameter or Quatrain – but the fact is He DIDN’T.

Equally, if He did use allegory to describe His Creation Acts in Genesis – one would STILL expect to be able to rationally comprehend what He was actually saying.
I must say to the ‘allegorically inclined’ that God’s rather pedestrian use of the word ‘Day’ in Gen 1 rather than the much more poetic ‘Eon’ is a bit of a ‘letdown’ for the poet in me.
The fact that His Genesis (poetry or otherwise) bears no resemblance to anything even approaching a coherent “Evolutionary Sequence” must also be a great disappointment for all of the 'Evolutionary Poets' out there.
When I actually manage, with great difficulty, to read Genesis as poetry – I STILL find that it declares the wonders of Special Divine Creation (and not evolution).


Quote Excelsior
Some ancient Greeks in a pre-Empirical metaphysic advanced a developmental theory that has been termed "Evolution". What we are discussing here is the contemporary theory of evolution, which is in no way the same thing.

Sadly evolution, despite the acres of copy written about it, still remains roughly where the Ancient Greeks left it – a series of unfounded speculations revolving around the idea that all life slowly evolved from Pond-scum or ‘primordial muck’ to Man.

If you DO know ‘the contemporary theory of evolution’ – and it differs significantly from what I have said please outline it.

robindch

> evolution, despite the acres of copy written about it, still
> remains roughly where the Ancient Greeks left it

Just a thought -- why don't you try reading something more up to date about biology than the bible? Perhaps you could crack the spine of that Dawkins book you said you had? I'm sure he mentions evolution in there somewhere or other!

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Literal Laws are ALWAYS based on literal concepts. A non-empirically based Law is unenforceable.

Nonsense. Please prove, EMPIRICALLY, that murder is bad.

J C wrote:

If we accept for the sake of argument, your thesis that Genesis, Exodus and Jesus Christ’s own sermons were confined to constructs that their immediate audiences could understand – I still don’t accept that even these audiences couldn’t understand the concept of Theistic Evolution – and therefore the fact that ‘evolution’ isn't referred to anywhere in the Bible means that the concept isn't true – and NOT that it couldn’t be intellectually comprehended by ANYBODY.

If you insist on taking Genesis literally, you must also accept the following:

* The sky is the space between the Earth and a vast ocean [Genesis 1:6-8]
* The sun, moon and stars are in this space, between the land and waters below and the vast ocean above[Genesis 1:14-18]

I mean, seriously. Explain this one away.

And get back to me on the first few chapters on John. I'd like to see you explain how these should be seen. Literally? You mean Jesus is a literal word? Metaphorically? Then why not Genesis?

And here's the kicker. I believe it's all true. Genesis. John. All of it. True.

J C wrote:

Could I also say that I would have no problem if God wrote Genesis in Rhyming Slang, Iambic Pentameter or Quatrain – but the fact is He DIDN’T.

Excelsior: I think it's time to crack out that diagram. PS: the new version is on its way.

J C wrote:

Sadly evolution, despite the acres of copy written about it, still remains roughly where the Ancient Greeks left it – a series of speculations revolving around the idea that all life slowly evolved from Pond-scum or ‘primordial muck’ to Man.

If you DO know ‘the contemporary theory of evolution’ – and it differs significantly from what I have said please outline it.

Have you done any honest research on evolution?

J C

Quote Excelsior
Can I restate once again, I think Jesus and his followers and enemies could easily have grasped this contemporary theory if you sat them down and taught them painstakingly from the beginning. But it is not part of the Kingdom announcing and inaugurating agenda of Jesus Christ to invent and then teach biology.

Genesis 1 certainly shows that it WAS a part of God’s agenda to give a coherent account of how all life was created.
The Jewish Rabbis DID painstakingly copy the Old Testament and did painstakingly study every word in it – are you saying that they were wasting their time doing so because God didn’t bother to “painstakingly teach them evolutionary theory from the beginning” and so they remained ignorant of the important fact that God was actually ‘The God of Evolution’ – and not The Creator God that they believed Him to be from His writings in the Bible?


Quote Excelsior
Originally Posted by JC
Why would God bother with such an obviously wasteful, inefficient mechanism based squarely on cut-throat competition and death – and if He did why didn’t He tell us?
Oh who are you man, to question the mind of God!

It is increasingly likely that He is using that process so best not question him JC.
Touché Excelsior, as conventional science disproves evolution and discovers that all of life was created perfectly by God.

As a mere Human, I never question the Mind or the Actions of God

My question was rhetorical – so I wasn’t questioning God – I was questioning why Theistic Evolutionists would believe that a Holy and Loving God would use Death and ‘survival of the fittest' as the mechanisms to perfect His Creation.
I was also asking Theistic Evolutionists to provide evidence for their belief that God did so, using whatever reasons they may have for this belief – and that invitation still stands.

J C

Quote JustHalf
Originally Posted by J C
Literal Laws are ALWAYS based on literal concepts. A non-empirically based Law is unenforceable.
Nonsense. Please prove, EMPIRICALLY, that murder is bad.

The Laws against murder ARE empirically based and they require EMPIRICALLY-BASED evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

The Laws against murder derive their ultimate authority from the 6th Commandment of God.

The unprovoked killing of another person is objectively evil.

From a pragmatic point of view, murder must be detected by lawful authority and punished to prevent further un-necessary loss of life by either the assailant or by the friends of the victim seeking vengeance.

On the other hand, God will save, even murderers, if the repent of their sins and believe on Jesus Christ.


Quote JustHalf
If you insist on taking Genesis literally, you must also accept the following:

* The sky is the space between the Earth and a vast ocean [Genesis 1:6-8]
* The sun, moon and stars are in this space, between the land and waters below and the vast ocean above[Genesis 1:14-18]

I mean, seriously. Explain this one away.

Let’s look at the two passages of Genesis that you refer to.

Gen 1:6-8 “And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky”. And there was evening, and there was morning – the second day.” (NIV).

Gen 1:14-18 “And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth”. And it was so. God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.” (NIV).

The first passage describes the events of the Second Day of Creation. God took the water-covered Earth that He had created on the previous day and He divided the waters into a water canopy above the Earth’s ATMOSPHERE (which He called the “EXPANSE” or the “SKY”) from the waters on the surface of the Earth.

The second passage describes the events of the Fourth Day of Creation. God created the Sun, Moon and Stars in OUTER SPACE (which He called the “EXPANSE OF THE SKY”).

Today, we describe clouds in the atmosphere as being “in the sky” and we also describe the Sun, Moon and Stars as also being “in the sky”.

However, it is obvious from the context that the particular “sky” in which the clouds are in is the atmosphere while the “sky” in which the Sun, Moon and Stars are in is outer space.

Similarly, the “expanse” or “sky” THAT god created on the Second Day was the atmosphere of the Earth, while the “expanse of the sky” IN WHICH God created the Sun, Moon and stars was Outer Space.


Quote JustHalf
Have you done any honest research on evolution?

I used be very interested in all of the latest speculations on evolution as they were published.
When I discovered that ‘molecules to Man’ evolution had no scientific basis, I ceased taking much of an interest in it.

However, as a scientist, I am still prepared to evaluate any new scientific evidence for evolution with an open mind – so if you have any such evidence I will certainly examine it.

JustHalf

JC, will you please stop making posts and then deleting them. It's obnoxious.

hairyheretic

J C wrote:

The Laws against murder derive their ultimate authority from the 6th Commandment of God.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this.

J C wrote:

The unprovoked killing of another person is objectively evil.

From a pragmatic point of view, murder must be detected by lawful authority and punished to prevent further un-necessary loss of life by either the assailant or by the friends of the victim seeking vengeance.

This I can agree with, but it does not have a religious component.

Pretty much every culture I know off has laws against killing others, stretching back throughout history. How could a culture with no exposure to the bible have laws against killing if, as you state, "The Laws against murder derive their ultimate authority from the 6th Commandment of God."

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Quote JustHalf
Originally Posted by J C
Literal Laws are ALWAYS based on literal concepts. A non-empirically based Law is unenforceable.
Nonsense. Please prove, EMPIRICALLY, that murder is bad.

The Laws against murder ARE empirically based and they require EMPIRICALLY-BASED evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

Laws against murder are NOT empirically based. They are based on moral and/or pragmatic principles. Their current implementation requires empirical evidence to achieve a conviction, but that does not mean that the empiricism inspired the principle.

Why do we have a law against murder? We do not have a law against murder because murder is empirically bad, because you can't measure "badness" in any rigorous fashion. You can't claim that Hitler is a 253% more bad person than I am, or that stealing a car is 25% worse than stealing a book. It just doesn't make any sense.

You are claiming that, because the law requires empirical evidence for a conviction, that the law itself is based on empiricism. It's not. The law against murder is based on the principle that murder is bad, and it is implemented using a system that has empirical evidence as one of the chief components.

J C wrote:

The Laws against murder derive their ultimate authority from the 6th Commandment of God.

No they don't.

China is a country ruled by an atheistic government with a populace that mainly follows non-Christian religions. Do the laws in China against murder derive their authority from the 6th commandment?

J C wrote:

The unprovoked killing of another person is objectively evil.

From a pragmatic point of view, murder must be detected by lawful authority and punished to prevent further un-necessary loss of life by either the assailant or by the friends of the victim seeking vengeance.

This isn't empirical anything.

J C wrote:

Quote JustHalf
If you insist on taking Genesis literally, you must also accept the following:

* The sky is the space between the Earth and a vast ocean [Genesis 1:6-8]
* The sun, moon and stars are in this space, between the land and waters below and the vast ocean above[Genesis 1:14-18]

I mean, seriously. Explain this one away.

Let’s look at the two passages of Genesis that you refer to.

Gen 1:6-8 “And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky”. And there was evening, and there was morning – the second day.” (NIV).

Gen 1:14-18 “And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth”. And it was so. God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.” (NIV).

The first passage describes the events of the Second Day of Creation. God took the water-covered Earth that He had created on the previous day and He divided the waters into a water canopy above the Earth’s ATMOSPHERE (which He called the “EXPANSE” or the “SKY”) from the waters on the surface of the Earth.

The second passage describes the events of the Fourth Day of Creation. God created the Sun, Moon and Stars in OUTER SPACE (which He called the “EXPANSE OF THE SKY”).

Today, we describe clouds in the atmosphere as being “in the sky” and we also describe the Sun, Moon and Stars as also being “in the sky”.

However, it is obvious from the context that the particular “sky” in which the clouds are in is the atmosphere while the “sky” in which the Sun, Moon and Stars are in is outer space.

Similarly, the “expanse” or “sky” THAT god created on the Second Day was the atmosphere of the Earth, while the “expanse of the sky” IN WHICH God created the Sun, Moon and stars was Outer Space.

You are seriously stretching the credibility of your argument here; it's absurd to claim that "the expanse" and "the sky" are the same thing, but "the expanse of the sky" is a separate thing.

Also, you still have to explain why where that "water canopy" actually is. You claim it is above the Earth's atmosphere, but where is it then? The solar sytem? The Oort cloud? The local group?

J C wrote:

Quote JustHalf
Have you done any honest research on evolution?

I used be very interested in all of the latest speculations on evolution as they were published.
When I discovered that ‘molecules to Man’ evolution had no scientific basis, I ceased taking much of an interest in it.

However, as a scientist, I am still prepared to evaluate any new scientific evidence for evolution with an open mind – so if you have any such evidence I will certainly examine it.

As a matter of interest, what type of scientist are you?

Asiaprod

JC. It would appear that there are actually two separate and very different stories of creation contained in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 and the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24.:

Your creation foundation is built on the first story in Genesis 1: 1-2:4, the sequence is 7days

Day 1, light, Day 2, Firmament (The sky), Day 3, Dry land, seas and plants, Day 4, Sun, moon and stars, Day 5, Fish, Sea monsters and winged birds, Day 6, Cattle, creeping things, beasts and finally man. Day 7, Vacation after a job well done.

Now in Genesis 2:4-9, 18-19, the sequence is 1 day, one very busy day.

In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground, then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast 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.

As the creation scientist you claim to be, can you spot the very BIG difference. Of course you can, you have very carefully avoided any reference to it.

Apart from the discrepancy in the number of days creation took, the order of creation is completely different. According to Genesis chapter two, man was made before any plants and animals were created. There is no ambiguity with the wording. It is clearly stated that there were no plants of any kind when man was first created. It was also clearly stated that animals were created after man was created as helpers for the human! According to Genesis chapter one, plants created in day three and animals in day five and six with man being the last item of creation on the sixth day.

And there is more, Adam and Eve are also in contradiction: Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:20-22: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman

And still more JC
In the first account, water first covered the earth and dry land was not made until the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). In the second account, the earth was dry land before a mist came up from the earth and watered the whole earth (Genesis 2:5-6)
In the first story, the man and woman was allowed to eat any fruit (Genesis 1:29 and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food), yet in the second story he is prohibited from eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17 & 3:3). Apples JC have seeds in them.
You are a scientist JC, and as such you see the written account in the Bible as infallible proof that God created all and there was no evolution. Then how do you resolve these differences? There is only one way JC, different authors giving their opinions of creation. So which one is right and why? Taken literally, none of them are right. Creation here is a representative story only, it is not proof that that in 7 days God created all we see.

J C

JustHalf wrote:

JC, will you please stop making posts and then deleting them. It's obnoxious.

I certainly DIDN'T delete this post - perhaps you should ask the moderator why part of my post 'disappeared'.

Or perhaps my mouse 'ate' it!!

Excelsior

Heavy suggestions there JC. As I read that it says to me that the moderator (me or my silent buddy Pooka) hacked into your account to edit your posts?

Some less gracious than me would say this is continuing in a disturbing line of fantasy...

J C

Quote Excelsior
Genesis doesn't account for the laughable 20-word summary you insultingly offer up because Genesis 1-3 is not about the mechanics of Creation. It is about the intention of the Creator and the reason his loving relationship with us is broken and our world is in decay. Once again, the Bible is concerned with bigger issues than biology.

My point was that God could just as easily have informed us in Genesis 1 and 2, that He used a process of Evolution rather than a process of Direct Creation.
It is a FACT that He didn’t do so.
It is also a FACT that Genesis 1 and 2 ARE about the MECHANICS of Creation – and Creation WAS about much more than Biology.

Genesis 3 DOES tell us about why our relationship was broken with God – ironically BECAUSE one man and one woman refused to believe that God LITERALLY meant what He said in Gen 2:17.

Adam and Eve’s belief that Gen 2:17 wasn’t literally true didn’t have ANY effect on God’s condemnation upon them and all of us as their descendants.

We are all reaping the folly of Adam and Eve’s acceptance of Satan’s assurance that the words of Gen 2:17 didn’t literally mean that they would die – and that is another good reason why a literal interpretation of Genesis is a STILL a very good idea.


Quote JustHalf
Although Jesus is "the Word", and we sometimes refer to the Bible as "the Word of God", these are two entirely separate things.

Could I quote Jn 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

Therefore Jesus Christ was the Word (of God) that SPOKE all of Creation into existence, He was also the Word (of God) who directly inspired the WRITTEN Word of God in the Bible and He was the Word (of God) who was made man as Jesus Christ who spoke directly ‘man to man’ while here on Earth about 2,000 years ago.


Quote JustHalf
Jesus isn't the Bible. When John talks about the Word, he's not talking about the Bible. We don't have a quadrinity of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the KJV.

Of course, Jesus Christ isn’t a physical Bible – but EVERY WORD in the Bible is His Word.
We certainly DON’T have a ‘quadrinity’ – we have a Triune God of Father, Son (or Word) and Holy Ghost (or Spirit).


Quote JustHalf
I do have to say that, whatever Greek Scholars came up with, it was unlikely to have been available to the son of a carpenter and his working-class mates; so it's irrelevant to this debate.

This “son of a carpenter” that you refer to IS Jesus Christ – who was God Incarnate – and therefore the speculations of every Greek Scholar (and every thought that they ever had) were completely familiar to Him as God.

robindch

> Therefore Jesus Christ was the Word (of God) that SPOKE all
> of Creation into existence, He was also the Word (of God)
> who directly inspired the WRITTEN Word of God in the Bible
> and He was the Word (of God)

This is as clear as mud. And I'm assuming that you didn't bother reading my post from a few days back explaining the philosophical context of 'word' at the beginning of John's text! Oh well. Plus ça change.

JC rants on, the tumbleweed rolls on by :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

It would appear that there are actually two separate and very different stories of creation contained in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 and the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24.:

This is a really good objection, getting to the heart of the Christian belief in the Bible as the word of God.

Yes, that is a conclusion one could make at first glance. But the case for complimentary accounts is made when we look further.

Objections to complimentary accounts:

1. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

The term day has various meanings: eg. 24 hours; the period of daylight; the time when. The context here suggests the latter sense, ie. 'When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'. See The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol.2, page 420. Willem A. VanGemeren, General Editor. 1996.

2. Plants and animals said to be created after man.5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. Does this refer to natural or to cultivated plant-life? The latter is suggested by the fact the existence of these plants is said to depend on rain and cultivation by man. This points to the coming Garden of Eden as the context for the 'no plants', rather than all the earth.

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. The Hebrew here can equally be rendered had formed. So God was bringing to Adam the beasts He had previously created. See Genesis, page 81. G. Ch. Aalders, English translation by William Heynen. 1981.

3. Woman not created with the man.

I can't see how you have difficulty accommodating both descriptions of the creation of man and woman. The first account was the general description, the latter was the detailed. On the sixth day.

4. Dry land precedes water.

The start-state of the planet was that of being covered with water. Then dry land was made to appear. The reference to this dry land in Genesis 2 is to the absence of precipitation, not the absence of water on the earth.

5. Restrictions on eating fruit.

Again, it is normal practise even today to give the general rule in relating the general account, but to give any exceptions in the detailed account. So generally all plants were given to man to eat. They did not have to ask if they might eat this one or that. But when the account comes to the details, the one exception is given.

BTW, the fruit of the forbidden tree is not named - 'apple' has just come to be assumed, a bit like the 'three' Wise Men of the Nativity.

Lastly, the idea that the author/collators/authorities (whatever one considers to be the source of Genesis) would allow two starkly contradictory accounts of Creation to appear side by side seems rather unusual. Christians hold to the Biblical view that God revealed this history to Moses and that he recorded the accounts, holding them to be complimentary rather than contradictory.

J C

Quote JustHalf
You are seriously stretching the credibility of your argument here; it's absurd to claim that "the expanse" and "the sky" are the same thing, but "the expanse of the sky" is a separate thing.
Also, you still have to explain why where that "water canopy" actually is. You claim it is above the Earth's atmosphere, but where is it then? The solar sytem? The Oort cloud? The local group?

What I did say was that the “expanse” or “sky” THAT god created on the Second Day was the atmosphere of the Earth, while the “expanse of the sky” IN WHICH God created the Sun, Moon and stars on the Fourth Day was Outer Space.

There is no great mystery about these passages of scripture or what they mean.
It is analogous to a statement that clouds are in the sky (or atmosphere) while the Sun, Moon and Stars are also in the sky (or Outer Space).

The “water canopy” is believed to have collapsed onto the Earth during Noah’s Flood. This collapse is described in Gen 7:11 as “the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (NIV).
Another indication that these waters were involved in Noah’s Flood is that the only Act of Creation that isn’t called “good” by God is His separation of the waters on the Second Day of Creation – and as these were the very waters that wiped out nearly all life on Earth – He was correct that they weren’t “good”.


Quote Asiaprod
JC. It would appear that there are actually two separate and very different stories of creation contained in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 and the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24.:

I recall reading two History’s of World War One.

One History gave an account of what happened on each day of the War taken from the coverage of various newspapers of the time. This History started on the first day of the war and gave a day-by-day account of events right up to the last day of the War. In other words, this History gave an account of the War in Chronological Order.

The second History gave an account of the people, the battles, the ships, guns, etc – in other words this History was in Subject Order i.e in no particular chronological order. When I turned from one page about a battle in 1916, the next page was talking about the uniforms that the soldiers wore and some pages LATER the key political events that lead up to the outbreak of the war in 1914 were discussed. In other words, this History of the First World War had the key political events that lead up to the START of the war in 1914 somewhere in the MIDDLE of the book

Both History’s were valid accounts of the First World War and they both gave different and valuable insights into the same event – The First World War.

Genesis 1 gives an account of Creation in Chronological Order – starting with the creation of the Earth on the First Day and finishing with the creation of mankind on the Sixth Day.

Genesis 2 given an account of Creation in subject order, starting with the Divinely ordained basis for the Sabbath and ending with the Divine ordained basis for marriage. In between, the method of creation is expanded upon including the creation of Adam and Eve as well as the naming of the common animals and birds. It also describes the idyllic lifestyle that our first parents in the Garden of Eden. The fact that ‘timing’ isn’t an issue in Genesis 2 is confirmed by the fact that it STARTS with the LAST Day of Creation in Gen 2:1-3.

There was only ONE Creation and it is described using two different methodologies – Genesis 1 in Chronological Order and Genesis 2 in Subject Order (with the focus largely revolving around Mankind).
.

Quote Asiaprod
And there is more, Adam and Eve are also in contradiction: Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

I see no contradiction here.

First God created one man Adam in His own image i..e. “in the image of God He created him” (one man singular).
God subsequently created one woman Eve i.e. “male and female he created them” – this gives the creation order male first and then female.

To summarise “in the image of God he created him (Adam); male and female he created them (Adam and Eve).”


Quote Asiaprod
In the first account, water first covered the earth and dry land was not made until the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). In the second account, the earth was dry land before a mist came up from the earth and watered the whole earth (Genesis 2:5-6)

Genesis 1 starts it’s chronological account with the creation of Earth, whereas Genesis 2 has it’s subject order focus on Man – who obviously arrived after dry land had appeared.

Quote Asiaprod
In the first story, the man and woman was allowed to eat any fruit (Genesis 1:29 and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food), yet in the second story he is prohibited from eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17 & 3:3). Apples JC have seeds in them.

Adam and Eve WERE allowed to eat EVERY fruit, including apples.

The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” WASN’T an apple tree or indeed a literal fruit tree at all.

Have you ever seen a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in your local Garden Centre?

I think not.

Dare I say it, but this particular tree is an ALLEGORY – and the ONLY allegory that I am aware of in Genesis 1 or 2.

God had very good reasons for using this allegory in Genesis 2 and I think that these good reasons continue to exist, in view of the fact that all of creation continues to labour under the condemnation of God for Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey Him on this particular issue.

All that I will say is that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” IS still around AND it brings death - but you will not find it growing at the bottom of your garden.

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Quote Asiaprod
In the first story, the man and woman was allowed to eat any fruit (Genesis 1:29 and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food), yet in the second story he is prohibited from eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17 & 3:3). Apples JC have seeds in them.

Adam and Eve WERE allowed to eat EVERY fruit, including apples.

The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” WASN’T an apple tree or indeed a literal fruit tree at all.

Have you ever seen a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in your local Garden Centre?

I think not.

Dare I say it, but this particular tree is an ALLEGORY – and the ONLY allegory that I am aware of in Genesis 1 or 2.

God had very good reasons for using this allegory in Genesis 2 and I think that these good reasons continue to exist, in view of the fact that all of creation continues to labour under the condemnation of God for Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey Him on this particular issue.

All that I will say is that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” IS still around AND it brings death - but you will not find it growing at the bottom of your garden.

Are you serious? You insist that Genesis be taken literally to suit your world-view, and then decide that a part of the Genesis story -- one of the most crucial parts, the Fall of Man -- is allegory?

You, sir, have given me a headache.

Asiaprod

2. Plants and animals said to be created after man.

Does this refer to natural or to cultivated plant-life?

The latter is suggested by the fact the existence of these plants is said to depend on rain and cultivation by man.

I must disagree; all plant, cultivated or otherwise, require water to grow i.e. Rain

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam

The Hebrew here can equally be rendered had formed. So God was bringing to Adam the beasts He had previously created.

So once again Moses got the sequence wrong?

3. Woman not created with the man.
I can't see how you have difficulty accommodating both descriptions of the creation of man and woman. The first account was the general description, the latter was the detailed.

No, they are two different interpretations, a) he made them together, b) he made Eve later from a spare rib.

4. Dry land precedes water.
The start-state of the planet was that of being covered with water. Then dry land was made to appear. The reference to this dry land in Genesis 2 is to the absence of precipitation, not the absence of water on the earth.

No, it says dry land was made to appear from a water covered world, nothing about rain here.

5. Restrictions on eating fruit.
Again, it is normal practice even today to give the general rule in relating the general account, but to give any exceptions in the detailed account.

I am having problem with theses terms, General account and detailed account. How do you know which is detailed and which is general. There are no references to these terms in the Bible as far as I know? Who decided which is considered to be general or detailed?

Lastly, the idea that the author/collators/authorities (whatever one considers to be the source of Genesis) would allow two starkly contradictory accounts of Creation to appear side by side seems rather unusual.

That is exactly my problem; they are side-by-side and are starkly different.

Christians hold to the Biblical view that God revealed this history to Moses and that he recorded the accounts, holding them to be complimentary rather than contradictory.

Sounds like Moses has some accounting to do. I am surprised he managed to make such a mess of the sequence. I mean, this was a pretty important revelation. Why did he feel the need to explain it twice? If he felt it was that important he would have used the same sequence and expanded on each segment as he went. Instead, we now have confusion.

Asiaprod

JC wrote:

The “water canopy” is believed to have collapsed onto the Earth during Noah’s Flood. This collapse is described in Gen 7:11 as “the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (NIV).

Ah, how convenient, that explains where all the water came from. Just out of curiosity, why on earth (oops a pun) have a canopy of water held up in the sky. Was God anticipating he would need this for the flood? Do you imply that he pre-planned the whole thing in advance?

Quote Asiaprod
JC. It would appear that there are actually two separate and very different stories of creation contained in Genesis.

I recall reading two Histories’ of World War One.

Ah, but there was only one Moses.

The fact that ‘timing’ isn’t an issue in Genesis 2 is confirmed by the fact that it STARTS with the LAST Day of Creation in Gen 2:1-3.

I am sorry, you have lost me here. What is your point?

The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” WASN’T an apple tree or indeed a literal fruit tree at all. Have you ever seen a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in your local Garden Centre?

Hello, I thought you were the one who was all on for taking the Bible literally
Have you now changed direction and decided that there are now indeed non-literal sections. That is very convenient for your argument. Either you take it literally or non-literally, you cannot have it both ways.

Dare I say it, but this particular tree is an ALLEGORY – and the ONLY allegory that I am aware of in Genesis 1 or 2. God had very good reasons for using this allegory in Genesis 2 and I think that these good reasons continue to exist, in view of the fact that all of creation continues to labor under the condemnation of God for Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey Him on this particular issue.

Ah JC, do really expect anyone to take this seriously. The ONLY one?

All that I will say is that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” IS still around AND it brings death - but you will not find it growing at the bottom of your garden.

I don’t think I will ask you to explain this, I am not sure I could take the passion of your response to it.

Asiaprod

JC, here is another puzzle in one on your favorite topics, the flood.
Genesis 6:19-20
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive."

Now, same writer, same book, same subject, completely contradictory

Genesis 7:2-3
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth. "

Are we again being general and descriptive here. If not, why does god keep having to repeat himself to Moses? I think for you the Genesis 7:2-3 quote would be the best, then you can justify the building of an Ark capable of performing the task. as laid down in the Bible, which for you is infallible, cause I cannot conceive of how a vessel big enough could have been built unless there were not that many animals to start with.
However, that idea brings us back to evolution does it not, since now we have thousands of animal that MUST have evolved from the original limited species.
So now we need to go back to Genesis 7:2-3, to support your creationist theory, thereby conveniently bypassing evolution.
But then we know the dimensions of the Ark, and we know that Ark could not possibly hold all the animals we now have.
This Bible is a confusing book JC when you try to interpret it word for word. What will it take for you to admit that it is a multi-authored book that possibly contains some facts, some myths and some fantasies. And should never to be taken literally, as you seem to selectively insist on doing.

robindch

> "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring
> two of every sort into the ark"

Landover Baptist sorted out this:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0605/flyingdinos.html

And they're selling some ID stuff too:

http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/849733

...just the ticket for xmas!