Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: I just use the proper scripture where God is talking about reproduction - life breeding and producing after its kind and it is not talking about reproduction there, imo you are making reproduction fit into it. I understand though because I did not realize what I've tried to show you for years,I totally overlooked it and it is easy to do,until it was pointed out to me.

Even if "according to their kind" does not explicitly refer to reproduction, that still does not imply that plants and animals existed prior to being created or made by God in Genesis 1.

"according to their kind" is referring to the object being made/created, and in no way implies that the object being made/created pre-existed before it was made/created.

This can be easily demonstrated by examining how this Hebrew phrase is used elsewhere in Scripture.

Here are some examples:
Leviticus 11:13-19

13 ‘These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15 every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17 and the little owl and the cormorant and the [h]great owl, 18 and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19 and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

Deuteronomy 14:11-20

11 “You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 13 and the red kite, the falcon, and the kite in their kinds, 14 and every raven in its kind, 15 and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the pelican, the carrion vulture, the cormorant, 18 the stork, and the heron in their kinds, and the hoopoe and the bat. 19 And all the teeming life with wings are unclean to you; they shall not be eaten. 20 You may eat any clean bird.

So when you assert that the phrase "according to their kind" or "in their kinds" somehow implies that plants and animals existed before God created them in Genesis 1 then you are directly contradicting the Scriptural sequence of events given in Genesis 1.

In Christ

It is easy to see after their kind,God created or made it after what kind? after his kind,what was before to create or make it after his kind? It is definately pointing to former life imo.Anyway I edited my link above as an example of defeating an evolutionist on-line.You can check it out,if you want to and see how I did. I do repeat myself probably too much but I'm trying to drive my point home.This is just an on-line debate too.

abelcainsbrother wrote: It is easy to see after their kind,God created or made it after what kind?

Part of your interpretive problem involves an assumption you bring to the English phrase "after their kind"

You assume the English word 'after' implies an inference of sequence in relation to the act of making/creating.
This is why I use the more accurate phrase "according to their kind", which does not contain the English word 'after' which you have used to justify an incorrect sequence of events.

The verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy clearly demonstrate that the phrase "according to their kind"/"in their kind" has nothing to do with sequence of events, or the pre-existence of an animal before it is made/created.

As a thought exercise, read through Genesis 1 but instead of using "after their kind" use the phrase we see in Leviticus and Deuteronomy... "in their kind".
Can you still justify your assertion of the pre-existence of plants and animals before they were made/created if you use the phrase "in their kind"?

In Christ

acb wrote:


It is easy to see after their kind,God created or made it after what kind? after his kind,what was before to create or make it after his kind? It is definately pointing to former life imo.Anyway I edited my link above as an example of defeating an evolutionist on-line.You can check it out,if you want to and see how I did. I do repeat myself probably too much but I'm trying to drive my point home.This is just an on-line debate too.

You debated someone in the comment section of a YouTube video?

RickD wrote:

acb wrote:


It is easy to see after their kind,God created or made it after what kind? after his kind,what was before to create or make it after his kind? It is definately pointing to former life imo.Anyway I edited my link above as an example of defeating an evolutionist on-line.You can check it out,if you want to and see how I did. I do repeat myself probably too much but I'm trying to drive my point home.This is just an on-line debate too.

You debated someone in the comment section of a YouTube video?

That is why I said it is just an online debate. It is just an example.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: It is easy to see after their kind,God created or made it after what kind?

Part of your interpretive problem involves an assumption you bring to the English phrase "after their kind"

You assume the English word 'after' implies an inference of sequence in relation to the act of making/creating.
This is why I use the more accurate phrase "according to their kind", which does not contain the English word 'after' which you have used to justify an incorrect sequence of events.

The verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy clearly demonstrate that the phrase "according to their kind"/"in their kind" has nothing to do with sequence of events, or the pre-existence of an animal before it is made/created.

As a thought exercise, read through Genesis 1 but instead of using "after their kind" use the phrase we see in Leviticus and Deuteronomy... "in their kind".
Can you still justify your assertion of the pre-existence of plants and animals before they were made/created if you use the phrase "in their kind"?

In Christ

Where are you getting your phrase "according to their kind"? But I still say even if you make it according to their kind it is still points to former life because God still created and made life according to its kind,How can God create and make life according to its kind?If no life existed before?Some life was new kinds of life and some had already been created before. I"m not interchanging "bara" and "asah" though.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Where are you getting your phrase "according to their kind"?

Here's a link to the Hebrew/English Interlinear for Genesis 1 at biblehub.com (awesome site!)
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

The NIV and ESV also translate the phrase "according to their kind"

The NRSV translation brings some clarity to what "after/according to/in their kind" actually means within the context of Genesis 1.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

The NRSV translation of Genesis 1 does an excellent job of demonstrating that "after/according to/in their kind" has nothing to do with the preexistence of vegetation and animals before they were made or created.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Where are you getting your phrase "according to their kind"?

Here's a link to the Hebrew/English Interlinear for Genesis 1 at biblehub.com (awesome site!)
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

The NIV and ESV also translate the phrase "according to their kind"

The NRSV translation brings some clarity to what "after/according to/in their kind" actually means within the context of Genesis 1.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

The NRSV translation of Genesis 1 does an excellent job of demonstrating that "after/according to/in their kind" has nothing to do with the preexistence of vegetation and animals before they were made or created.

In Christ

I want you to show me anywhere in the OT where "bara" and "asah" are interchangable. Show me because you will not find anywhere in the OT where they are interchangable like certian rival creation ministries teach. They are so wrong and it is they that are changing the meaning of words around in order to hold to their interpretation. Anywhere you see the word created in the OT it is always something new that God created and anywhere you see the word "made" in the OT it is ALWAYS something that had already been created before,so show me anywhere in the OT where these words are interchangable.

This includes animals and man too so that anything God created was brand new life that had never been created before but when God MADE life it had already been created before so we know life had existed before and we have evidence of fossils in the earth that confirms it too,there is all kinds of extinct life in the earth both plant life and animal life in the earth that God did not create for this world but some life he did create new for this world and some life he made again like roaches and silverfish,these fossils go back millions of years. So we can say he made roaches and silverfish for this world too.

Anybody who teaches they are interchangeable is wrong and it is they who are adding and taking away from God's word. I have already gave the definitions from Strong's online Hebrew/Greek concordance and they clearly say "bara " means God created something new but when God uses "asah" it is always something that had already been created new before and it is never something new when we see made or "asah" but show me where Gap Theorists are wrong and making up stuff.

It is the opposite and it is they who are changing the meaning of words to hold to their particular creation interpretation. They are fleecing their flock of followers.

And when we read Genesis 1 or the OT and we understand and know the difference between "bara" and "asah" we will interpret it differently and we will know that God restored the earth and heavens and he both created and made life for this world after he restored the earth and heavens in the 6 days. And this is exactly what Genesis 2:2-4,Exodus 20:11,etc tells us God did not create anything new when it comes to the earth and heavens in the 6 days,he restored them in order to create and make life for this world.

Yet we hear that God created everything in the 6 days and this is wrong regardless if they are a bible scholar too.

abelcainsbrother wrote: I want you to show me anywhere in the OT where "bara" and "asah" are interchangable.

There are a number of them, but the most explicit and easiest to see is the Genesis 1:26-27 example that I mentioned earlier.
However... whether or not bara and asah are interchangeable or not has nothing at all to do with the direct contradiction between the Gap Theory and the Sequence of events laid out in Scripture in Genesis 1.

If God formed plants and/or animals out of nothing (bara) then according to Genesis 1 He did it after Genesis 1:2... which directly contradicts the Gap Theory.
If God formed plants and/or animals out of preexisting matter (asah) then according to Genesis 1 He did it after Genesis 1:2... which directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

If bara and asah are interchangeable then the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 directly contradicts the Gap Theory.
Even if bara and asah aren't interchangeable then the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 still directly contradicts the Gap Theory.
I don't really have a strong feeling either way concerning whether or not asah and barah are interchangeable, because there is solid Scriptural evidence to support both positions. As I said earlier I am inclined to accept the premise that bara and asah do have slightly different meanings... if that makes you feel better.
The bottom line is... Either way... the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

Yet we hear that God created everything in the 6 days and this is wrong regardless if they are a bible scholar too.

The explicit and repeated teaching of Scripture is that God made and/or created everything in 6 yom.
The question that is debated among the different creation theories is what does yom mean within the context of Genesis 1.
I think Genesis 2:4 answers that pretty clearly.

But Scripture clearly teaches that all plant and animal life were made and/or created after Genesis 1:2.

In Christ

So DBowling,

What you're saying, is that whether or not bara and asah are interchangeable, it's after Genesis 1:2, that God created life that didn't exist before. And since the Gap Theory "gap" is between Genesis 1:1, and 1:2, the gap theory is refuted?

In other words, if life was created after the supposed gap, then that life couldn't have been created before the gap?

Am I getting you correctly?

RickD wrote:So DBowling,

What you're saying, is that whether or not bara and asah are interchangeable, it's after Genesis 1:2, that God created life that didn't exist before. And since the Gap Theory "gap" is between Genesis 1:1, and 1:2, the gap theory is refuted?

yup

In other words, if life was created after the supposed gap, then that life couldn't have been created before the gap?

I am very reluctant to put the words "God" and "couldn't" in the same sentence.

But acb claims to place Scripture over tradition (and I honestly believe that is his desire).
However, the sequence of events that Scripture gives in Genesis is significantly different from the Gap Theory Sequence of events, which is why I keep going back to the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 over... and over... and over... and over... etc... again.
My hope here is that acb would look at the Scriptural sequence of events given in Genesis 1 that I keep hammering at, and choose Scripture over the man made Gap Theory.

ACB asked me to provide a Scripture that explicitly supports the position that bara and asah are interchangeable within the context of Genesis 1, and I was able to do what he asked (Genesis 1:26-27)

However, acb is unable to provide a single Scripture that says that God created plant and/or animal life before Genesis 1:2. And that is because it doesn't exist.

I think the Scriptural evidence is conclusive enough that we don't even have to go to geology and science. Which would confirm that there has never been a planet wide deluge since the time of the plants and animals that the Gap Theory claims existed prior to Genesis 1:2.

Am I getting you correctly?

I think so...

I won't be offended if you want to push me a little to say something other than...
"The Scriptural sequence of events given in Genesis 1 explicitly contradicts the Gap Theory"


In Christ

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: I want you to show me anywhere in the OT where "bara" and "asah" are interchangable.

There are a number of them, but the most explicit and easiest to see is the Genesis 1:26-27 example that I mentioned earlier.
However... whether or not bara and asah are interchangeable or not has nothing at all to do with the direct contradiction between the Gap Theory and the Sequence of events laid out in Scripture in Genesis 1.

If God formed plants and/or animals out of nothing (bara) then according to Genesis 1 He did it after Genesis 1:2... which directly contradicts the Gap Theory.
If God formed plants and/or animals out of preexisting matter (asah) then according to Genesis 1 He did it after Genesis 1:2... which directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

If bara and asah are interchangeable then the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 directly contradicts the Gap Theory.
Even if bara and asah aren't interchangeable then the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 still directly contradicts the Gap Theory.
I don't really have a strong feeling either way concerning whether or not asah and barah are interchangeable, because there is solid Scriptural evidence to support both positions. As I said earlier I am inclined to accept the premise that bara and asah do have slightly different meanings... if that makes you feel better.
The bottom line is... Either way... the Scriptural sequence of events in Genesis 1 directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

Yet we hear that God created everything in the 6 days and this is wrong regardless if they are a bible scholar too.

The explicit and repeated teaching of Scripture is that God made and/or created everything in 6 yom.
The question that is debated among the different creation theories is what does yom mean within the context of Genesis 1.
I think Genesis 2:4 answers that pretty clearly.

But Scripture clearly teaches that all plant and animal life were made and/or created after Genesis 1:2.

In Christ

Hey buddy,you are so close to understanding this about "bara" and "asah". I won't try to change your mind to accept the Gap Theory however you should know that Gap Theorists know God created life before Genesis 1:2 and believe God both created and made life after Genesis 1:2.

Also I have no problem with yom that can mean longer than a normal day but I personally do not see the need to extend the days out but I'm also not against those who do extend the days out. We serve an eternal God,so what was God doing before just 6000 years ago? I can be reasonable about yom and like you pointed out Genesis 2:4 points out yom can mean longer than a day however don't overlook bara and asah in there too and only focus on yom.

Now personally I don't like the way certian new translations cut out the phrase "These are the generations" in Genesis 2:4 but that is to be expected since I hold to the Gap Theory interpretation and you should know in the foot notes it points out "These are the generations" was cut out of that verse. What can I say? Some people are against the earth being old and not young but God and Moses had already told us the heavens and earth are old and not young if you don't cut off "These are the generations" from that verse.

The truth is there were generations of the heavens and earth Genesis 2:4,generations of Adam Genesis 5:1 and generations of Noah too Genesis 6:9.

That is OK though because I can use pretty much any of the new popular translations to defend the Gap Theory interpretation. I don't have to be a KJV-onlyist to be a Gap Theorist as some are not KJV only. I know Gap theorists that prefer the NASB version. I just personally prefer the KJV bible because I feel like there was less of a bias and agenda back then,because it was long before modern science and before the age of the earth was even an issue like it is today about 400 years ago.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Now personally I don't like the way certian new translations cut out the phrase "These are the generations" in Genesis 2:4 but that is to be expected since I hold to the Gap Theory interpretation and you should know in the foot notes it points out "These are the generations" was cut out of that verse. What can I say? Some people are against the earth being old and not young but God and Moses had already told us the heavens and earth are old and not young if you don't cut off "These are the generations" from that verse.

The truth is there were generations of the heavens and earth Genesis 2:4,generations of Adam Genesis 5:1 and generations of Noah too Genesis 6:9.

A quick comment on "these are the generations"...

The newer translations aren't cutting any phrases out of Scripture.
The question is what is the most accurate English translation of the Hebrew 'toledoth'?.

Some of the newer translations (NIV and NASB for example) translate 'toledoth' as English 'account' instead of English 'generations'.
A very wordy but literal English translation of the phrase as used in Genesis 2:4 would be
"account of heaven and earth and that which proceeded from them"
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8435.htm

The important thing to note here is that 'toledoth' does not imply that there were multiple generations of heaven and earth.
Genesis 2:4 is saying that God created/made heaven and earth, and that the things that were created/made on days 1-6 proceeded from that heaven and earth that God created/made.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Now personally I don't like the way certian new translations cut out the phrase "These are the generations" in Genesis 2:4 but that is to be expected since I hold to the Gap Theory interpretation and you should know in the foot notes it points out "These are the generations" was cut out of that verse. What can I say? Some people are against the earth being old and not young but God and Moses had already told us the heavens and earth are old and not young if you don't cut off "These are the generations" from that verse.

The truth is there were generations of the heavens and earth Genesis 2:4,generations of Adam Genesis 5:1 and generations of Noah too Genesis 6:9.

A quick comment on "these are the generations"...

The newer translations aren't cutting any phrases out of Scripture.
The question is what is the most accurate English translation of the Hebrew 'toledoth'?.

Some of the newer translations (NIV and NASB for example) translate 'toledoth' as English 'account' instead of English 'generations'.
A very wordy but literal English translation of the phrase as used in Genesis 2:4 would be
"account of heaven and earth and that which proceeded from them"
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8435.htm

The important thing to note here is that 'toledoth' does not imply that there were multiple generations of heaven and earth.
Genesis 2:4 is saying that God created/made heaven and earth, and that the things that were created/made on days 1-6 proceeded from that heaven and earth that God created/made.

In Christ

OK but I did not say multiple generations,I only said the phrase "These are the generations" and you can disagree with this translation however you must admit that if it is "These are the generations"and it is right? It means the earth is old and then adding in "bara" and "asah" and it tells us more.. Now for me,the reason why I don't like the translation you are using is because they only changed it from "These are the generations" when it comes to showing the earth is old but they kept the translation generations when it came to the generations of Adam and the generations of Noah also.

It is also like how they changed replenish to fill just so that it does not show evidence of former life which would mean an old earth eventhough it does'nt sound right to tell Noah,his sons and their wives to fill the earth,replenish makes more sense,but they'll still change it just so they can have a certian interpretation.

Anyway we can disagree over translations. I'm just telling why I accept the translation I do.It is no wonder why Christians disagree so much. It comes down to what translation we prefer alot of times and there are differences with the translations.

abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but I did not say multiple generations,I only said the phrase "These are the generations" and you can disagree with this translation however you must admit that if it is "These are the generations"and it is right? It means the earth is old

Actually I have no problem with "these are the generations" as long as you understand which definition of the English word 'generations' is meant by the Hebrew 'toledoth'.

If you define the English word 'generations' as 'things generated from' then I think that 'generations' is a perfectly good word to use for 'toledoth' in Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 6:9.
However, I am an 'old earther', and as an 'old earther' I would not try to use the Hebrew word 'toledoth' as a Scriptural proof for an old earth.
Again the meaning of the word 'toledoth' in Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 6:9 is a reference to things proceeding from or things being 'generated' from.

It is also like how they changed replenish to fill just so that it does not show evidence of former life which would mean an old earth

This is one that the KJV translators just flat out got wrong.

Hebrew 'male' does not mean 'replenish'... it means fill.
That is why the newer translations of the Bible use 'fill' instead of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28.
And the NKJV even corrects this error in the KJV.

And just so you don't think that all these modern translations are just a conspiracy against the Gap Theory. 200 years before the time of Christ, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) translated the Hebrew 'male' in Genesis 1:28 into the Greek 'pleroo'.

Care to guess what Greek 'pleroo' means?
You guessed it... "to make full, to complete"

So in the case of the Hebrew 'male', the KJV English translation of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28 is the anomaly.
The KJV translators just blew it on this one.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but I did not say multiple generations,I only said the phrase "These are the generations" and you can disagree with this translation however you must admit that if it is "These are the generations"and it is right? It means the earth is old

Actually I have no problem with "these are the generations" as long as you understand which definition of the English word 'generations' is meant by the Hebrew 'toledoth'.

If you define the English word 'generations' as 'things generated from' then I think that 'generations' is a perfectly good word to use for 'toledoth' in Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 6:9.
However, I am an 'old earther', and as an 'old earther' I would not try to use the Hebrew word 'toledoth' as a Scriptural proof for an old earth.
Again the meaning of the word 'toledoth' in Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 6:9 is a reference to things proceeding from or things being 'generated' from.

It is also like how they changed replenish to fill just so that it does not show evidence of former life which would mean an old earth

This is one that the KJV translators just flat out got wrong.

Hebrew 'male' does not mean 'replenish'... it means fill.
That is why the newer translations of the Bible use 'fill' instead of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28.
And the NKJV even corrects this error in the KJV.

And just so you don't think that all these modern translations are just a conspiracy against the Gap Theory. 200 years before the time of Christ, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) translated the Hebrew 'male' in Genesis 1:28 into the Greek 'pleroo'.

Care to guess what Greek 'pleroo' means?
You guessed it... "to make full, to complete"

So in the case of the Hebrew 'male', the KJV English translation of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28 is the anomaly.
The KJV translators just blew it on this one.

In Christ

If that is true about replemish meaning to fill,then explain why replenish makes more sense when God told Noah,his sons and their wives to replenish the earth? Read about Noah's flood because only 8 people survived it which is why replenish mkes more sense. I have read the arguments for replenish meaning fill and they are weak reasons imo. It is changing God's word in order to get the translation they prefer.