Debates Discussions

[Jac3510]

Genesis says that mankind was created from dust. That eliminates the possibility of human evolution. It says that animals reproduce after their own knid. That eliminates macroevolution.

Certainly, God is capable of creating using evolution, but the way the Bible describes the process God actually used precludes it as something He actually did. As you guys have said over and over, this is not about what God COULD have done, but about what He ACTUALLY did.

Therefore, when anyone, laymen or scientist, says that God created the various kinds of animals, including humans, using evolution (theistic evolution), they are in error.

[Canuckster1127]

Maybe. There's a possibility your hermeneutic is incomplete or could be in error as well, but as you say, that takes the conversation in an entirely different direction. As it stands, I'm basically in agreement with you and I don't see anything that requires that type of re-evaluation from the realm of science and physical evidence.

[Byblos]

Genesis says that mankind was created from dust. That eliminates the possibility of human evolution.

I disagree. Talk to any astrophysicist and that's exactly what they will tell you, we're all the stuff of dust, star dust that is. I don't see science contradicting scripture in any way.

It says that animals reproduce after their own knid. That eliminates macroevolution.

TE doesn't preclude special creation, for one. For another, even if macroevolution or interspeciation is proven false, evolution in the general sense would still hold true. No contradiction here either.

Certainly, God is capable of creating using evolution, but the way the Bible describes the process God actually used precludes it as something He actually did. As you guys have said over and over, this is not about what God COULD have done, but about what He ACTUALLY did.

Nothing is precluded from God's word because God's word is not a science book and we need to stop trying to reconcile it with science (not saying you're doing that Jac, just a general statement).

Therefore, when anyone, laymen or scientist, says that God created the various kinds of animals, including humans, using evolution (theistic evolution), they are in error.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I see great harmony between the two.

[Jac3510]

I disagree. Talk to any astrophysicist and that's exactly what they will tell you, we're all the stuff of dust, star dust that is. I don't see science contradicting scripture in any way.

Do you think that is what Moses had in mind when he wrote the words, "God formed the man from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7)? Why, if that was the case, then everything was formed from the "dust of the ground," so it is rather misleading on the part of Moses here to suggest that man's creation was any different from the rest of the animal kingdom's (or the earth's for that matter). Further, it says that the man was formed and THEN God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Again, if TE were true, then man was a nephesh long before God formed him.

The order of the wording is plain. God took dirt from the ground (you are aware, I'm sure, that the word Adam is a play on words for the word for ground), shaped it into a man's body, and then animated it with life.

TE doesn't preclude special creation, for one. For another, even if macroevolution or interspeciation is proven false, evolution in the general sense would still hold true. No contradiction here either.

Of course TE precludes special creation. If evolution were true, you do not have special creation by definition. Further, the only type of evolution I am talking about is macroevolution--the idea of the diversity of life being explained by descent from a common ancestor. Again, Genesis 1:24-25 says

• "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind

If evolution is true, modern animals are descendent of animals not after their kind.

Nothing is precluded from God's word because God's word is not a science book and we need to stop trying to reconcile it with science (not saying you're doing that Jac, just a general statement).

I, of all people, most thoroughly agree that we need to stop wasting our time trying to reconcile the Bible with Scripture. But you are incorrect to say that nothing is precluded. Polytheism is precluded. A static universe is precluded. Humans existing before birds is precluded. Anything that does not match the Genesis account is precluded. Since the evolutionary idea does not match the Genesis account, it is precluded.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I see great harmony between the two.

Respectfully, I can't see how.

[waynepii]

@Jac

What are your thoughts about psalm 93.1 ...

1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

... and 1 Chronicles 16:30 ...

Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Don't the underlined sections imply the Earth is fixed? These passages were used to "prove" Gallileo Galilei's "heresy" of claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun. To avoid excommunication, he "recanted" and admitted his "error".

[cslewislover]

@Jac

What are your thoughts about psalm 93.1 ...

1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

... and 1 Chronicles 16:30 ...

Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Don't the underlined sections imply the Earth is fixed? These passages were used to "prove" Gallileo Galilei's "heresy" of claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun. To avoid excommunication, he "recanted" and admitted his "error".

I take these as meaning that what the Lord created and reigns over cannot be altered by others. What is your point in bringing up past interpretations of them?

I just looked up a some commentary on them; it says the Psalm is about Christ's future rule over the world. For what it's worth in this discussion.

[Byblos]

I disagree. Talk to any astrophysicist and that's exactly what they will tell you, we're all the stuff of dust, star dust that is. I don't see science contradicting scripture in any way.

Do you think that is what Moses had in mind when he wrote the words, "God formed the man from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7)? Why, if that was the case, then everything was formed from the "dust of the ground," so it is rather misleading on the part of Moses here to suggest that man's creation was any different from the rest of the animal kingdom's (or the earth's for that matter). Further, it says that the man was formed and THEN God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Again, if TE were true, then man was a nephesh long before God formed him.

We can certainly guess what Moses had in mind but no one knows for sure so there's no point in speculating. What we do know is that man was made from the dust of the earth but the text does not perclude everything else from being formed from the dust of the earth either. The text is silent on that. And it is certainly not misleading to think of man as different from the rest of creation considering we were created in the image of God. What do you attribute that to be Jac, a physical likeness? I hope not.

The order of the wording is plain. God took dirt from the ground (you are aware, I'm sure, that the word Adam is a play on words for the word for ground), shaped it into a man's body, and then animated it with life.

I don't disagree with any of this, except perhaps the suttle implication that it was done instantaneously. I wholeheartedly believe God made us from dirt, gave us life, and made us onto his likeness.

TE doesn't preclude special creation, for one. For another, even if macroevolution or interspeciation is proven false, evolution in the general sense would still hold true. No contradiction here either.

Of course TE precludes special creation. If evolution were true, you do not have special creation by definition. Further, the only type of evolution I am talking about is macroevolution--the idea of the diversity of life being explained by descent from a common ancestor. Again, Genesis 1:24-25 says

What if I told you there was evidence not of a single comman ancestor but of of a multitude of common ancestors after their own kind? Sort of a super-macroevolution? That would put TE in whole new perspective wouldn't it?

[

• "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind

If evolution is true, modern animals are descendent of animals not after their kind.

I'm not sure what your last point is. Yes, I agree animals are descendents of animals after their own kind. It's perfectly plausible that domesticated dogs are descendents of other wild canines.

[

Nothing is precluded from God's word because God's word is not a science book and we need to stop trying to reconcile it with science (not saying you're doing that Jac, just a general statement).

I, of all people, most thoroughly agree that we need to stop wasting our time trying to reconcile the Bible with Scripture.

I'm almost positive you meant with science. I hope you still believe the Bible is reconcilable with scripture.

[But you are incorrect to say that nothing is precluded. Polytheism is precluded. A static universe is precluded. Humans existing before birds is precluded. Anything that does not match the Genesis account is precluded. Since the evolutionary idea does not match the Genesis account, it is precluded.

I meant it in the microcosm of the discussion we're having, not as an all-encompassing statement but point conceded. And again, I do not see the Genesis account not matching what I'm describing.

[

[waynepii]

@Jac

What are your thoughts about psalm 93.1 ...

1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

... and 1 Chronicles 16:30 ...

Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Don't the underlined sections imply the Earth is fixed? These passages were used to "prove" Gallileo Galilei's "heresy" of claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun. To avoid excommunication, he "recanted" and admitted his "error".

I take these as meaning that what the Lord created and reigns over cannot be altered by others. What is your point in bringing up past interpretations of them?

That the then current interpretation was clearly proven wrong (by science as it turns out).

We can certainly guess what Moses had in mind but no one knows for sure so there's no point in speculating. What we do know is that man was made from the dust of the earth but the text does not perclude everything else from being formed from the dust of the earth either. The text is silent on that. And it is certainly not misleading to think of man as different from the rest of creation considering we were created in the image of God. What do you attribute that to be Jac, a physical likeness?

That sums up my point pretty well.

I just looked up a some commentary on them; it says the Psalm is about Christ's future rule over the world. For what it's worth in this discussion.

That is the current interpretation. Why is the current interpretation different? What changed? Certainly not God's intent.

[Jac3510]

We can certainly guess what Moses had in mind but no one knows for sure so there's no point in speculating. What we do know is that man was made from the dust of the earth but the text does not perclude everything else from being formed from the dust of the earth either. The text is silent on that. And it is certainly not misleading to think of man as different from the rest of creation considering we were created in the image of God. What do you attribute that to be Jac, a physical likeness? I hope not.

This is a nice rhetorical point, but, with all due respect, you cannot hold to it consistently. We know what Moses had in mind for the simple reason that his words tell us. That is what communication is. If you believe that you can have nothing more than speculation about what is in another person's mind based on their words, you give up all rights to communication of any kind.

My point remains. Moses' point is clear. Man was made out of the dirt of the earth--the thing he and his readers were familiar with. And still further, the idea just occurred to me, it could not mean star dust. It is nothing more than an accident of the English language that the word "dust" can apply to the stuff stars produced and the soil of the ground. The Hebrew word "dust" is a reference to the soil on top of the ground. You can't say that has anything to do with stars. It's dirt, Byblos. Moses' point is very well taken, and very well understood.

I don't disagree with any of this, except perhaps the suttle implication that it was done instantaneously. I wholeheartedly believe God made us from dirt, gave us life, and made us onto his likeness.

Why would you disagree it was done instantaneously? That is what the text clearly implies. Even in an OEC model, I don't see how dirt could slowly form into the shape of a man and *POOF* become animated.

What if I told you there was evidence not of a single comman ancestor but of of a multitude of common ancestors after their own kind? Sort of a super-macroevolution? That would put TE in whole new perspective wouldn't it?

No. Why would it?

I'm not sure what your last point is. Yes, I agree animals are descendents of animals after their own kind. It's perfectly plausible that domesticated dogs are descendents of other wild canines.

Which all agree is not an instance of macroevolution. I could agree it seems plausible that domestic dogs are decendant of wild dogs, but they are all still dogs. THAT is not what an evolutionist has in mind, and you know that.

I'm almost positive you meant with science. I hope you still believe the Bible is reconcilable with scripture

You are correct . . . but how could you have possibly speculated as to what was in my mind?!?

I meant it in the microcosm of the discussion we're having, not as an all-encompassing statement but point conceded. And again, I do not see the Genesis account not matching what I'm describing.

And in the microcosm of the discussion we are having, macroevolution--the diversity of life being explained by mutation, natural selection, and common decent--is precluded by Genesis. In order to make it work, you have to argue that either we don't really know what Moses meant, or Moses didn't know what Moses meant, or the Israelites didn't know what Moses went, etc. In all such cases, you destroy any notion of communication in the text, because nothing is being communicated. You make Scripture unintelligible to everyone who has ever read it accept this generation, and then, we are only able to understand it because science gave us the right worldview in which to interpret it.

Again, you can't consistently hold to that without destroying every important doctrine in Scripture, from God's existence to the resurrection of Jesus.

And waynepii,

For the standard response to your question, see any Christian apologists website--OEC or YEC--to refute atheist's claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

[waynepii]

For the standard response to your question, see any Christian apologists website--OEC or YEC--to refute atheist's claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Again, my point is NOT "the Bible teaches a flat Earth" (actually the Earth was the center of the universe), but rather that, at one time, people used verses from the Bible to "prove" a "flat" Earth and persecute those who thought otherwise. IOW interpretations of the Bible change over time - why is this? IMO Even literal interpretation of the Bible is subject to misinterpretation.

[Jac3510]

And again, use any such website to see the error of your thinking. The Bible didn't teach the earth was flat (from a literal perspective), nor did it teach the earth is the center of the universe (from a literal perspective). Actually, it was the prevailing wordview of in both cases that caused the Bible to be read as such, rather like is happening today with TE.

[Canuckster1127]

The mindset and intent of the human author in a passage of scripture is important. However, when you add plenary inspiration to the mix you also have to allow for the possibility that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is communicating through the context of the author, the culture, the vocabulary etc. something that is beyond the full understanding or comprehension of the human author. In fact, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't by definition be "revelation."

I don't have any difficulty believing that God took dust, formed man and animated him instantaneously. However, I don't necessarily have a problem believing that God could have done it using other methods. I believe the language and the ability of the language and culture through whom God communicated speak primarily to cause and not detailed method. It simply wasn't a great concern nor was it the primary purpose of Genesis to address things in the detail and context that we bring in our thinking and perspective to this passage.

The context in which I see Genesis primarily is that of a re-establishment of national identity for Israel and as a called out chosen people of God. I accept the traditional timing that Genesis was written during the Exodus itself and in that context, I believe the purpose of the early chapters of Genesis are the same as the latter which are to trace the hand of God in creation, a plan for the world, the setting apart of Israel as a chosen nation etc.

All that said, I think you need not only to examine the view of the original author, with the understanding above that revelation allows that content can supercede the cognative understanding of the author, but also you examine the intended audience as I've outlined above. I don't believe that a primary purpose of Genesis was to establish detailed methodology and further that that was not a primary understanding or concern of the nation of Israel as they departed Egypt. The primary goal and thread is the plan and purpose of God as a thread re-establishing the identity of Israel and their current status at the time of writing.

Given that understanding, I would reiterate I don't have any difficulty with your position or preference to believe in an instantaneous creation formed from the dust of the earth as you note Jac. I'm not as hardline however that other interpretations are not allowed or possible both in terms of method and timing, because frankly, I just don't see the langauge, culture, intent of the human author, and understanding of the intended original audience as seeing that as anything but a secondary (in terms of purpose not importance) issue.

blessings,

bart

[waynepii]

And again, use any such website to see the error of your thinking. The Bible didn't teach the earth was flat (from a literal perspective), nor did it teach the earth is the center of the universe (from a literal perspective). Actually, it was the prevailing wordview of in both cases that caused the Bible to be read as such, rather like is happening today with TE.

Did the Church not threaten Galileo with excommunication for his views on heliocentrism? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Ga ... ontroversy.

[Canuckster1127]

And again, use any such website to see the error of your thinking. The Bible didn't teach the earth was flat (from a literal perspective), nor did it teach the earth is the center of the universe (from a literal perspective). Actually, it was the prevailing wordview of in both cases that caused the Bible to be read as such, rather like is happening today with TE.

In fact, it wasn't until the episode above that the hermeneutic of perspective was introduced and it was, to my observation, one of the rare instances of natural science correcting an embedded point of view within theology. I'm not suggesting that that is taking place now, however, there's some value I think in keeping that in mind and allowing even just a small amount of openness and humility and not confusing theology with the Word of God itself.

[Canuckster1127]

And again, use any such website to see the error of your thinking. The Bible didn't teach the earth was flat (from a literal perspective), nor did it teach the earth is the center of the universe (from a literal perspective). Actually, it was the prevailing wordview of in both cases that caused the Bible to be read as such, rather like is happening today with TE.

Did the Church not threaten Galileo with excommunication for his views on heliocentrism? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Ga ... ontroversy.

Yes the Church did. There was more involved in terms of internal politics at the time, but that was the stated reason Galileo was threatened with excommunication and it was the reason he bowed to the pressure and recanted his position.