Evolution and Creation: the Middle Ground?

[MarkyMark7]

Also, another reason I don't beleive in things such as theistic evolution, is b/c once again, all scripture is God-breathed (1 Timothy). Genesis says that all animals came about in a matter of days...Evolution taking place in a few days? Ha! Also, let's say you (I don't) think when it says in Genesis "days" it isn't referring to 24 hour periods (it says there was evening and morning...) but could mean eons or w/e about of time. So, that would mean, according to Genesis, that ALL teeming creatures of water and winged birds were around BEFORE the beasts of the earth were. Evolution, or as Darwin called it Descent with Modifications, does not support this idea at all, yet Genesis does. You cannot factually accept both as truth.
Also, modern science does not in any way put Evolution beyond a theory. So, you can accept modern scientific facts and the Bible without them contradicting each other.

[Canuckster1127]

Kurieuo that's something interesting I'd never been shown before. However, just b/c "ab" can mean grandfather and "ben" can mean grandson doesn't mean they do. When does "ab" mean (great) grandfather and when does "ben" mean (great) grandson? I know nothing about Hebrew, but wouldn't context clues indicate the exact meaning? Surely there is a separate word meaning grand son/father. If anyone knows Hebrew grammar rules well, please fill us in.
Also, according to Strong's Bible Concordance, "father" is the exact and literal definition of "ab" and the exact meaning of "ben" is "a son". In giving a geneology, doesn't it seem logical that son or father would have their literal meanings? Why would Moses or anybody other writer in the Old Testement Bible use "ab" or "ben" figuratively while giving a geneology, and if they did, would they not put some kind of emphasis on a figurative expression? If that article is true, then the Old Testement geneologies are not worth anything b/c at any moment Moses, for example, could use "ben" and mean son, grandson, subject, nation, quality, or condition (all those and "etc." are given in the concordance as figurative meanings of "ben"). I could say "head" and mean "leader" but if I was talking about anatomy I wouldn't.

Context could play into it if there anything more than just the normal formulaic recitation used in the Biblical genealogies. They were puropsely made in the form they were because they were drawn from and designed for oral recitation and thus made to flow with a rhythm which made them easier for memory and to recite, like a poem.

Remember when Jesus in the NT rebuked the pharisees for their pride in being called "Children" of Abraham? He told them, God could raise up Children of Abraham from the Rocks? The words are preserved in Greek, but Jesus probably spoke them in Aramaic, or possibly Hebrew. It was very common, in Genealogies among the Jews to call themselves Children of Abraham, and/or Isaac and/or Jacob etc. and skip through the intervening generations because to them any decedent, no matter how far removed, whose lineage they were considered a part of, or the "seed" of was the point, not the scientific accuracy that is appealed to by those seeking to put those Hebrew genealogies into a western, time conscious context.

So, really, since you're appealing to them in a manner that extrapolates out to making a claim for years and time, the onus is on you or those in the YEC camp to demonstrate how and why the Hebrew means what is claimed and a western time specific context can be drawn from these ancient Hebrew texts. Interestingly enough, the Jews themselves today don't predominantly see things in that manner.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo that's something interesting I'd never been shown before. However, just b/c "ab" can mean grandfather and "ben" can mean grandson doesn't mean they do. When does "ab" mean (great) grandfather and when does "ben" mean (great) grandson? I know nothing about Hebrew, but wouldn't context clues indicate the exact meaning? Surely there is a separate word meaning grand son/father. If anyone knows Hebrew grammar rules well, please fill us in.
Also, according to Strong's Bible Concordance, "father" is the exact and literal definition of "ab" and the exact meaning of "ben" is "a son". In giving a geneology, doesn't it seem logical that son or father would have their literal meanings? Why would Moses or anybody other writer in the Old Testement Bible use "ab" or "ben" figuratively while giving a geneology, and if they did, would they not put some kind of emphasis on a figurative expression? If that article is true, then the Old Testement geneologies are not worth anything b/c at any moment Moses, for example, could use "ben" and mean son, grandson, subject, nation, quality, or condition (all those and "etc." are given in the concordance as figurative meanings of "ben"). I could say "head" and mean "leader" but if I was talking about anatomy I wouldn't.

Firstly it is nothing to do with "figurativeness". Re-read the Strong's and you will find it also has grandfather. Look up any lexicon and you will find "ben" means son or grandson. Essentially it should be take as a "descendant of" or "in the line of".

Compare Matthew 1:8

• "and to Asa was born Jehoshaphat; and to Jehoshaphat, Joram; and to Joram, Uzziah;"

with 1 Chronicles 3:10-12

• "Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, Jehoram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah [Uzziah] his son"

and Genesis 5-11 passages:

• And Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. Now he called his name Noah, (Genesis 5:28-29)... And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Genesis 5:32)... The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. (Genesis 10:22)... Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber. Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg (Genesis 10:24-25)

with that of Luke:

• the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, (Luke 3:35)
  the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, (Luke 3:36)

If the Genesis genealogies contain no gaps, then Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Cainan should not be missing.


To quote a portion of a lengthy article by Glenn Miller of the Christian Think Tank responding to something completely different:

There are only ten generations mentioned from Adam to Noah, but there could be generations deliberately omitted by the author, as was sometimes done in both the Bible and in the ANE [Ancient Near East]. Conservative scholars have long recognized this, esp. in the Genesis/Chronicles lists:

o "Analysis of genealogies, both inside and outside the Bible, has disclosed that they serve a variety of functions (with different principles governing the lists), that they vary in form (some being segmented, others linear) and depth (number of generations listed), and that they are often fluid (subject to change).

"There are three general areas in which genealogies function: the familial or domestic, the legal-political, and the religious. In the domestic area an individual's social status, privileges and obligations may be reflected in his placement in the lineage (see 7:14-19); the rights of the firstborn son and the secondary status of the children of concubines are examples from the Bible. In the political sphere genealogies substantiate claims to hereditary office or settle competing claims when the office is contested. Land organization and territorial groupings of social units may also be determined by genealogical reckoning--e.g., the division of the land among the 12 tribes. In Israel military levies also proceeded along genealogical lines; several of the genealogies in Chronicles reflect military conscription (5:1-26; 7:1-12, 30-40; 8:1-40). Genealogies function in the religious sphere primarily by establishing membership among the priests and Levites (6:1-30; 9:10-34; Ne 7:61-65).

"As to form, some genealogical lists trace several lines of descent (segmented genealogies) while others are devoted to a single line (linear genealogies).

"Comparison of genealogical lists of the same tribal or family line often brings to light surprising differences. This fluidity of the lists may reflect variation in function. But sometimes changes in the status or relations of social structures are reflected in genealogies by changes in the relationships of names in the genealogy (see 1:35-42; 6:22, 27) or by the addition of names or segments to a lineage (see 5:11-22; 6:27; 7:6-12). The most common type of fluidity in Biblical materials is telescoping, the omission of names from the list. Unimportant names are left out in order to relate an individual to a prominent ancestor, or possibly to achieve the desired number of names in the genealogy. Some Biblical genealogies, for example, omit names to achieve multiples of 7: For the period from David to the exile Matthew gives 14 generations (2 times 7), while Luke gives 21 (3 times 7), and the same authors give similar multiples of 7 for the period from the exile to Jesus (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-38).

"The genealogies of Chronicles show variation in all these properties; the arrangements often reflect the purpose for which the genealogies were composed prior to their being adopted by the Chronicler as part of his record. [The NIV Study Bible, at the introduction to I Chronicles]

o "As mentioned above, it is clear that many OT genealogies are incomplete. There are four links from Levi to Moses (Exod 6:16-20), but the descendants of Levi in Moses' day were 22,000 males (Num 3:39). The genealogy from Ephraim, Levi's nephew, to Joshua seems to show eighteen links (1 Chron 7:20-27). In the NT Matthew 1:1 names just three links from Christ to Abraham. The full genealogy, or list of kings (Matt 1:2-17), omits the names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah and also Jehoiakim, in contrast to the lists of kings in the OT. The genealogy of Ezra (Ezra 7:1-5) has only five links from 456 B.C. back to Zadok, David's high priest in about 960 B.C. Obviously, only the more famous men are mentioned....It is also held that some of these names [in the Genesis 11 genealogy] are actually family or clan names."[R.L. Harris, "Genealogy", ZPEB]

o "In the Western practice of drawing up family trees, great care is taken that the genealogical record is as complete as possible for each generation. This procedure contrasts notably with ancient Near Eastern custom, where it was not considered necessary for pedigrees to be complete. Variations in designation from the modern patter were also entertained in a manner that is not always easily recognized. The term 'father,' e.g., could be applied to a superior was not a relative, and this is reminiscent of the 'school father' (i.e., school principal) of the Sumerians. People could also be considered brothers merely by being associated with one another in a treaty (cf. Am. 1:9). The word 'son' could be used almost as widely as it is in modern Western society, and the same was generally true for 'mother' and 'daughter' as well...The aim of such genealogies was to establish the general line of descent from given ancestors, and this objective was in no way impaired by the omission of certain generations as long as the line was being traced properly...Schematic patterns can be discerned periodically in Scripture, notably in Gen. 5 and 11. The genealogies in both these chapters consist of ten units in which the age of the parent at the birth of his firstborn was recorded, as well as the remaining years of his life. Both lists also concluded with the names of three male siblings in a manner that can hardly be accidental. While these genealogies are no doubt genuine and ancient, they seem to have been arranged in such a manner as to permit easy memorization of the chief descendants of the ancestral stock...The eclectic principles upon which the compilation of so many Scriptural genealogies are based should be a sufficient caution against using them for anything more than the most general of chronological purposes." [R.K. Harrison, "Genealogy", ISBE revised ed.]

o "Comparing biblical genealogies to one another shows that there are often several generations skipped in any particular presentation. This type of telescoping also occurs in Assyrian genealogical records. This we need not think that the genealogy's purpose is to represent every generation, as our modern family trees attempt to do." [OT:BBCALL:35]

o "This is not to say that Gen. 5 was produced in the midst of a literary vacuum. A. Malamat has shown that these early genealogies in Genesis stem from archetypes among West Semitic tribes from the Old Babylonian period where the ten-generation list is frequent. Applying this observation to Gen. 5 leads us to believe that the names of Gen. 5 need not be understood sequentially. Thus the figures cannot be added to arrive at the age of mankind. Instead, what we have are symmetrical genealogies: ten generations before the Flood (Gen. 5) and ten generations after the Flood (Gen. 11). So when Gen. 5 says that 'X fathered Y' it may mean that 'X fathered the line culminating in Y'" [Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, NICOT]

o "Genealogies were a standard feature of ancient historical tradition. Naturally, royal family trees furnish our principal examples, but records of lawsuits over land ownership show that many other people maintained such knowledge. Assyrian scribes of the 1st millennium bc listed kings of Assyria from remote times, with a line almost unbroken spanning 1,000 years (ANET3, pp. 564-566). The relationship of one to another was noted, and the length of reign of each. Heading the list are the names of 'seventeen kings who lived in tents'; long considered legendary, personifications of tribes, or fictitious, they now seem to have an historical basis with the discovery at Ebla of a treaty naming the first of them. From the 17th century bc survives a list of kings of Babylon, their ancestors and predecessors, sharing some names with the early part of the Assyrian King List. Earlier still is the Sumerian King List, completed about 1800 bc, which names kings of S Babylonia reaching back to the Flood, and before (ANET, pp. 265-266). Hittite, Ugaritic and Egyptian scribes have also left us king lists of varying lengths and purposes.

Some of the particular characteristics of biblical genealogies may also be observed in the texts. The lists of names are interspersed with historical or personal notes, comparable with those in Gn. 4:21, 23; 36:24; 1 Ch. 5:9-10, etc. The Sumerian King List has one Mes-kiaga-nuna, king of Ur, as son of Mes-ane-pada, but contemporary records suggest he was in fact the grandson of Mes-ane-pada, his father being one A-ane-pada. Either a scribe has omitted the father's name by error because it was so like the grandfather's, or 'son' is used in a wider sense than in English. The wider usage was common in Babylonian, as in all Semitic languages, for 'member of a specific group', and from 1500 bc onwards, mar ('son') was used in the sense 'descendant of'. An interesting case is found in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III which refers to Jehu as 'son (mar) of Omri' when in fact he was not related, but simply ruled the same state. A remarkable Egyptian example is a brief text in which King Tirhakah (c. 670 bc) honours his 'father' Sesostris III (c. 1870 bc) who lived some 1200 years before him. Similarly, King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia was called Ibn (son of) Saud, though he was really the son of Abd-er Rahman, and the Saud whose name he bore died in 1724. The use of relationship words, of family and dynastic names, and many other factors have to be borne in mind when interpreting any ancient genealogies.
There is thus no reason to suppose that all the genealogies in the Bible purport to be complete, since their purpose was more the establishment of descent from some particular ancestor or ancestors, a purpose unaffected by the omission of names, than the reckoning of exact chronologies. It is wrong, too, to dismiss any part of them as legendary, personifications of tribes or deities, or pure fiction in the light of growing evidence that other similar records have factual bases." [New Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Genealogy"]

(Does God's judgment violate the free choice of His creatures? - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stealtime.html [bold emphasis and underlining mine])

[Kurieuo]

Also, another reason I don't beleive in things such as theistic evolution

Not believing in theistic evolution is something we can both agree on as I do not believe in it either.

[Kurieuo]

Also, modern science does not in any way put Evolution beyond a theory. So, you can accept modern scientific facts and the Bible without them contradicting each other.

Just a word of caution if discussing with others who believe in evolution. Since in science understandings can change and we never have complete certainty, a theory is often understood to mean a well-substantiated explanation. It is a mistake to think that just because "evolution" is a theory that this reduces it in some way. As AiG themselves point out:

"Evolution is just a theory."

What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye—Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

(Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp)

That said, I fully agree with your last sentence. I am also a compatibilist when it comes to Scripture and nature.

[frankbaginski]

Kurieuo,

A little off subject but you asked the question about being a witness.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

In this I believe is the real call to declare yourself a Christian. Using Christ as the example we could form a view that teaching the Gospel and teaching God's Word will lead to persecution. In deed we find this in most of the world today.

Frank... I'm confused. Are you equating YEC with martyrdom?

NO! YEC is an interesting discussion and that is all. It is a curiousity that neither helps or hurts in the main tenets of the Bible.


Just a little info on the six days.

We know that the only thing that separates us from dust is the organization of the molecules and information contained in our DNA and other organic molecules, our spirit which is massless also separates us from dust. Our flesh comes from dust and our flesh returns to dust once we die. The flesh is a temporary host for our soul and spirit while we are here on earth. In the Bible in Genesis we come across the following description several times in the creation process.

So the evening and morning were the first day.
Gen 1:5

The terms evening and morning are translated from the Hebrew eh'-reb and bo'-ker. Eh'reb can mean difficult to discern, unorganized, unclear, evening. Bo'-ker for the morning can mean becoming clear, more organized. This would follow the path of organization and the adding of information.
Entropy is a law that tells us that all things decay and loose organization. We of course exist in violation of this basic law. The information and organization of our flesh came from the creation.

It would make more sense that the evening and morning reference would mean an organization of information. It stills occurs in a single day but fits better our understanding of entrophy and information theory.

Kurieuo,

Yes, there are many fine scientist with faith and a willingness to put themselves out there for their beliefs. But as you know they are not considered mainstream science. In fact the bulk of the scientific community does not accept what they do. In fact they wish they would just go away. If you don't see this then just who is not viewing the world with a realistic eye? So in keeping with what I said, I am refering to activist scientist. They just happen to be accepted by the bulk of the scientific community.

[MarkyMark7]

What about when it uses words such as "begot" or "begotten"? And I'm still asking, unless the person was like a great 8x grandfather (is there a word for ancestor in Hebrew?), why would they use the Hebrew word for son and not the hebrew word for grandfather? I'll look over those verses tomorrow, I do not have time tonight.

Ok, I did not realize that scientists used the word theory that way. My point is, Evolution is not in any way even close to being proven. So, by not believing in Evolution it's not like your ignoring hard scientific evidence. I know several people with degrees in biology/chemistry who discredit Evolution (granted they are Christians, but they still have credentials in science).
And this message isn't neccesarily talking just to you K. The first post talked about "why not believing in both" and that "not accepting Evolution flies in the face of modern science" (I am paraphrasing).

For past and future purposes, nothing I say in a message is ment in anyway to be rude or belittling to anyone. If it is, I am just stating my opinion and why I have it.

[Himantolophus]

Wow, there's more discussion than I thought. I'll dap through the post at a better time but I'll say something on the last one.

Ok, I did not realize that scientists used the word theory that way. My point is, Evolution is not in any way even close to being proven. So, by not believing in Evolution it's not like your ignoring hard scientific evidence. I know several people with degrees in biology/chemistry who discredit Evolution (granted they are Christians, but they still have credentials in science).
And this message isn't neccesarily talking just to you K. The first post talked about "why not believing in both" and that "not accepting Evolution flies in the face of modern science" (I am paraphrasing).

Defending science here... "theory" isn't just thrown out there as a word and suddenly it becomes scientific dogma. The "theory of evolution" has been exposed to numerous lines of evidence and also a lot of attacks. It has progressed from a novel idea with little evidence to an accepted idea with lots of evidence. It has withstood all of the challenges so far. A theory becomes a theory when it is backed up by existing evidence and also by experimental data. To date, there is still alot we don't know for sure but there is alot that we DO know. Science has an excellent track record. To declare that all of science today "has it wrong" is awfully boastfull.

As for evolution being "proven", you know that it never can be unless we have a time machine. Unfortunately for creationists, their theory also cannot be proven and so the argument is flawed.

As for "Christian" scientists, there are plenty of Christians that believe in evolution (myself included) so I'm assuming that you mean "evangelicals". This alone should throw up flares and warning signs that they are heavily biased by their born again experience. The fact that almost all YEC's are ultra-conservative Christians with an agenda to witness their beliefs on others should put immediate doubts into their credibility as non-biased scientists. They have abandoned whatever observation-based science they once knew for a theology-based version and frankly, they place themselves in a scientific counterculture. They spend all this money trying to disprove evolution since they cannot prove nor disprove the Bible thorugh typical experimentation (you cannot test a supernatural event). All in all, they call themselves scientists but they don't actual DO any science.

If you believe science is "biased" toward evolution like evolution is a religion then you are mistaken. Can you find proof for this "conspiracy"? Evolution wasn't started to destroy God or replace the Bible, it was started by free-thinkers that had the open-mindedness to think that maybe the history of the Earth was different from the story in the Bible. Evolution replaced Young Earth creationism just like alchemy was refuted, geocentrism was refuted, just like the flat Earth was refuted, and just like the eternal Universe was refuted. I know YEC's would never admit it, but YEC is following the same path as those other beliefs. They are an anachronism in the modern world. Their attempts to shoehorn >10 billion years of Universe, 4.6 billion years of life, several mass extinctions, dozens of non-sympatric faunas, slow geologic processes, and numerous chronological catastrophes into 6 thousand years is comical.

HOWEVER, God still has a place in it all and actual events can still be explained by Him. I think the "Middle Ground" has the best explanation for it all. Yes it requires a liberal interpretation of the Bible, but how do you know that this is not what God wanted to say in the first place? You don't know that. And if you assume that God didn't "dumb down" his explanation, explain how God would have explained modern physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy to the ancients. He couldn't, so the creation went down as a mythological tale.

So, who's belief is stronger?

Belief in a 100% literal Bible, and if one part is false, then my faith in the rest is put into doubt...
Belief in 95% as literal, 5% as a parable or story, and I still do not doubt my faith...

Or, if we suddenly found irrefutable proof of macroevolution, would you still believe in God? The Middle grounders more likely would but can you say the same for YEC's?

[Gman]

Also, another reason I don't beleive in things such as theistic evolution, is b/c once again, all scripture is God-breathed (1 Timothy). Genesis says that all animals came about in a matter of days...Evolution taking place in a few days? Ha! Also, let's say you (I don't) think when it says in Genesis "days" it isn't referring to 24 hour periods (it says there was evening and morning...) but could mean eons or w/e about of time. So, that would mean, according to Genesis, that ALL teeming creatures of water and winged birds were around BEFORE the beasts of the earth were. Evolution, or as Darwin called it Descent with Modifications, does not support this idea at all, yet Genesis does. You cannot factually accept both as truth.
Also, modern science does not in any way put Evolution beyond a theory. So, you can accept modern scientific facts and the Bible without them contradicting each other.

More about the winged birds were around BEFORE the beasts of the earth (according to the Bible)... As Rich points out, it's all about how you interpret a few Hebrew words...

Mortenson makes numerous statements regarding what the Bible teaches about the creation of animals: starfish before earthworms, dolphins before dinosaurs, birds before dinosaurs and reptiles, pterosaurs before land reptiles, whales and bats before land animals, mammals (cattle) before “creeping things” and flying insects before land insects. This is tied to the events of the fifth (Genesis 1:20-23) and sixth (Genesis 1:24-25) creation “days”:

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. … the fifth day.” (NIV)

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. … the sixth day.” (NIV)

The narrative of the fifth “day” describes the creation of two types of sea creatures: great creatures and creatures with which the water teems. The Hebrew word for great creatures (tanniyn) refers to “enormous creatures or whales.”22 The Hebrew word for the other creatures (sherets) means swarming things.23 In verse 20, both these creatures are referred to as “living things.” The Hebrew word used here (nephesh) connotes creatures with the attributes of mind, will and emotion.24 This indicates the sea creatures created on the fifth “day” were not fish but air-breathing mammals—whales, dolphins, porpoises and the like.25

The narrative of the fifth “day” also states God created “every winged bird.” The Hebrew word used here (owph) means to fly and is normally restricted to birds. For example, this is the term used to describe the birds Noah took aboard the ark. It can refer to flying insects. However, in that usage, it is usually combined with the Hebrew word sheres connoting “winged creeping thing” (e.g., Leviticus 11:20-23).26 The usage here seems to restrict the meaning to birds.

One possible exception is bats. Bats are listed among the unclean birds (owph) the Jews were instructed not to eat in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Some take this to mean the created owph included bats. Others claim the dietary statements have no bearing on Genesis 1—bats were listed with birds because the people of that day would not have understood the distinction between birds and mammals. The bottom line is we cannot rule out the possibility the owph on the fifth “day” included bats.

The narrative of the sixth creation “day” speaks of the creation of three types of land animals: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals. The Hebrew word for livestock (behema) refers to large four-footed mammals that are easy to domesticate.27 The Hebrew word for creatures that move along the ground (remes) refers to the locomotion of small creatures—small rodents and certain small reptiles.28 The Hebrew word for wild animals (chay) means wild or alive. Chay comes from the root haya that conveys living life to the fullest.29 Because this requires the attributes of mind, will and emotion; chay seems to refer to wild mammals.

Many young-earth creationists assume the creatures that move along the ground (remes) include crawling insects. However, a Hebrew word with a similar meaning, sheres, is normally used for those creatures. Sheres is also used to refer to creatures that glide or have many legs such as snakes, spiders and caterpillars.30

Based on the Hebrew word meanings, it is evident the text does not describe the creation of all sea and land creatures. The fifth “day” speaks of whales and other sea mammals, while the sixth “day” speaks of large mammals, small mammals and certain small reptiles. Therefore, we can only speculate as to where fish, amphibians, large reptiles, dinosaurs, insects and a host of other sea and land creatures fit into the scheme of the six creation “days.”

Many of Mortenson's statements go beyond the details of the biblical text. We simply cannot say with certainty if starfish preceded earthworms, birds and dolphins preceded dinosaurs, pterosaurs preceded land reptiles, and flying insects preceded land insects. He interprets the narratives of the fifth and sixth “days” to mean God created all sea and air creatures before He created land creatures. The text does not support that view. The Hebrew terms clearly do not encompass all of the creatures of the sea, land and air.31

Mortenson states mammals preceded creeping things (the KJV translation for remes). He notes the order mentioned in Scripture suggests a slight difference in the timing of their appearance; i.e., they were created on the same day, possibly moments or hours apart. The text gives no indication the different land animals were created sequentially.

According to Mortenson, bats preceded land animals. As stated previously, it is unclear if bats were created with birds on the fifth “day.” If they were, they would have preceded only those land animals specified in the narrative of the sixth “day”—certain mammals and small reptiles.

Mortenson claims whales preceded land animals. The Bible does indicate whales were created on the fifth “day” and the land animals on the sixth “day.” Again, that does not include all land animals—only certain mammals and small reptiles.

Finally, Mortenson alleges that birds preceded reptiles. The Bible does indicate birds were created on the fifth “day” and reptiles (remes) on the sixth “day.” However, the Hebrew word remes does include all reptiles. It refers only to small, modern reptiles common to the area of Palestine.32

It is important to note the verbs used in the narratives of the fifth and sixth “days.” The Bible states God created (bara) the sea creatures and birds. This indicates they were instantaneous creations by divine fiat. However, the text tells us God commanded the land to produce the land animals. The Hebrew verb used here, yatsar, has the meaning of “to cause to come forth.”33 This suggests the land animals were not instantaneous creations but something God may have introduced over time.

It should also be added that, according to the young-earth model, God created all land the animals—both living and extinct—in a 24-hour period. Thus, they would have all been on the Earth simultaneously. The narrative of sixth “day” does not support that view. The Hebrew terms clearly do not encompass all the land animals and the verb usage (yatsar) suggests a creative process of longer than 24 hours.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/mortenson.html

[MarkyMark7]

I looked over the verses provided that supported Old Earth Creationism and read the Bible Geneology entry from Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I think that the ten people missing from the geneologies definately points to a gapped Geneology which could mean the earth is potentially tens of thousands of years old. However, (and this is purely a question) would it then be logical to assume that the Geneologies with the most names are complete (as in ungapped) or not?
I still do not think that the literary structure and Hebrew to English translation supports Old Earth Creationism, b/c of the ages given in Genesis and the use of the word son. I just can't see them using "ben" (even though it can mean several different things) as a derogatory (as in referring to many not as undermining) term for any builder of the family name. We know that "ben" means son in many cases (1 Chronicles 28,29 and several throughout that chapter b/c they talk about Abraham/Isaac/Ishmael in Genesis).

[Kurieuo]

I looked over the verses provided that supported Old Earth Creationism and read the Bible Geneology entry from Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I think that the ten people missing from the geneologies definately points to a gapped Geneology which could mean the earth is potentially tens of thousands of years old. However, (and this is purely a question) would it then be logical to assume that the Geneologies with the most names are complete (as in ungapped) or not?
I still do not think that the literary structure and Hebrew to English translation supports Old Earth Creationism, b/c of the ages given in Genesis and the use of the word son. I just can't see them using "ben" (even though it can mean several different things) as a derogatory (as in referring to many not as undermining) term for any builder of the family name. We know that "ben" means son in many cases (1 Chronicles 28,29 and several throughout that chapter b/c they talk about Abraham/Isaac/Ishmael in Genesis).

Geisler's Encycleopedia of Christian Apologetics is a great Christian resource to have. Did you know that Geisler himself sees the Day-Age interpretation as being Scripturally valid?

What of the argument from implausible genealogies? If by adding up the same numbers one can determine the dates of births and deaths after Adam's creation:

Adam (1-930 AA)
Seth (130-1042 AA)
Enosh (235-1140)
Kenan (325-1236)
Mahalalel (395-1290)
Jared (460-1422)
Enoch (622-987)
Methuselah (687-1656)
Lamech (874-1651)
Noah (1056-2006)
Shem (1558-2158)
Arphaxad (1658-2096)
Salah (1693-2126)
Eber (1723-2187)
Peleg (1757-1996)
Reu (1787-2026)
Serug (1819-2049)
Nahor (1849-1997)
Terah (1878-2083)
Abraham (2008-2183)
Isaac (2108-2228)
Jacob (2168-2315)

(Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pp.268-269)

Accordingly Adam would have been a contemporary of Lamech, Noah's father. Abraham only missed being a contemporary of Noah by 2 years. Isaac would have been born fifty years before Shem died. Yet, nothing is mentioned of their being contemporaries. There are also population improbabilities which I won't get into, for I think this ought to be enough to reveal there clearly are gaps.

[frankbaginski]

Kurieuo,

I beg to differ. Job is full of talk about ancestors and the need to talk to them about things concerning the spirit.

Job 8:8 For inquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:
Job 8:9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow:)
Job 8:10 Shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter words out of their heart?
Job 8:11 Can the rush grow up without mire? can the flag grow without water?
Job 8:12 Whilst it is yet in his greenness, and not cut down, it withereth before any other herb.

Job 12:12 With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.
Job 12:13 With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.

Job 15:9 What knowest thou, that we know not? what understandest thou, which is not in us?
Job 15:10 With us are both the grayheaded and very aged men, much elder than thy father.

Also the population reference. I have done population checks before and after the flood and see no problems. You just need to trust the Word and have more offspring and longer child bearing years in the early days. This is clearly in scripture.

[Kurieuo]

Hi frank. Sorry, but I am not sure what exactly of my post you are responding to

[frankbaginski]

HI K,

I was refering to your comment:

Yet, nothing is mentioned of their being contemporaries.

By name you are right, I was just pointing out that there are references to the aged ones and their wisdom.