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.