Theistic Evolution Challenged

[Aman777]

Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.

Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.

My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.

Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.

My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?

In Love,
Aman

Do you want to talk about TE or do you want to talk about your own unique view of Genesis and Adam being made on the third day? If you want to argue against TE you would need to do it on a basis of a literal reading of Genesis you could convince them is the literal reading even if they don't read it literally. You are unlikely even to convince fellow creationists of your interpretation, you won't get anywhere with TEs. Trying to use your particular view rather than a common ground you share with other creationists will only get the discussion bogged down

 

[elopez]

Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.

Actually TE's do not teach that. TE's claim we share a common ancestor with apes. Most think also that we came from a primordial ooze from the ground. That in mind, most take Genesis 2:4-7 as symbolic to the idea of such.

Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.

Are you promoting some type of gap theory to creation here?

My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?

Again we teach that modern humans share a common ancestor with apes. Scripture does not show that impossible. Certainly not the ones you mentioned.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.
​

Elopez:>>Actually TE's do not teach that. TE's claim we share a common ancestor with apes. Most think also that we came from a primordial ooze from the ground. That in mind, most take Genesis 2:4-7 as symbolic to the idea of such.

Dear Elopez, Sharing a common ancestor with apes is teaching that humans evolved from other creatures, as I posted. This is UnScriptural since Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed long BEFORE any other creature. Here are the verses and an explanation of what they actually say:


Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

God made the Earth on the THIRD Day. Genesis 1:9-10

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

The plants GREW on the THIRD Day. Genesis 1:12

for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

These verses are telling us that on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants grew, the LORD made man of the dust of the ground. IF you don't agree, then explain your position. According to these verses man was before ANY other "common ancestor."

Aman:>>
Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.

Elopez:>>
Are you promoting some type of gap theory to creation here?


Absolutely NOT. I am saying that Humans were made the 3rd Day, before the natural creatures came forth from the water. Science agrees that the first life was in the water, and the cells within our bodies cannot survive without liquid water. I am saying that according to God and Science, life had it's origin in the water. Humans were made long before life came forth from the water. Each of God's "Days" or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length. This places the beginning of our Cosmos at 13.5 Billion years ago. Man was made some 9 Billion years BEFORE any other living creature.


Originally Posted by Aman777

My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?
​

Elopez:>>
Again we teach that modern humans share a common ancestor with apes. Scripture does not show that impossible. Certainly not the ones you mentioned.

Tell us how Adam could have come from apes when apes, which came from the life which first came from the water, could have existed BEFORE Adam, the first Human. Such teaching is UnScriptural, as I posted. Unless you can refute the verses above, you cannot rely on Scripture to support Theistic Evolution.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>Do you want to talk about TE or do you want to talk about your own unique view of Genesis and Adam being made on the third day? If you want to argue against TE you would need to do it on a basis of a literal reading of Genesis you could convince them is the literal reading even if they don't read it literally. You are unlikely even to convince fellow creationists of your interpretation, you won't get anywhere with TEs. Trying to use your particular view rather than a common ground you share with other creationists will only get the discussion bogged down

Dear Assyrian, I believe Theistic Evolutionists, who claim to be Christians, THINK that they can support their views with Scripture, since they believe that man was the last of the created beings. A correct reading of Genesis 2:4-7 shows that man was the FIRST being made instead of the last. I believe that TE is based on an UnScriptural point of view which has been pushed by those who don't believe the bible is true, literally, and use the tradiitonal view of ancient men in a vain effort to support their flawed view. I can understand someone who does NOT believe Scripture taking such a view, but not those who claim to be Christians. Show me where I'm wrong.

In Love,
Aman

 

[elopez]

Dear Elopez, Sharing a common ancestor with apes is teaching that humans evolved from other creatures, as I posted.

Saying modern humans evolved from other creatures is an inaccurate statement according to TE and evolution itself. Again, we think we share a common ancestor with apes, which is different from what you're saying.

This is UnScriptural since Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed long BEFORE any other creature. Here are the verses and an explanation of what they actually say:

Clearly you are beyond confused here. Genesis states that on the fifth day water creatures and birds were created. The sixth day it says God created the live stock, then man. So no, even according to a literal reading of Genesis the text does not state man was formed long before any other creature. Anyone that knows how to read can easily tell that, so I really have no clue as to why you're saying this.

These verses are telling us that on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants grew, the LORD made man of the dust of the ground. IF you don't agree, then explain your position. According to these verses man was before ANY other "common ancestor."

The third day is when the plants and other vegetation grew. In order for that to happen the earth would have had to already been made. Genesis, according to a literal reading, confirms both of these ideas. The first verse of Genesis states the earth was made. Man is not even mentioned again until day 6.

Absolutely NOT. I am saying that Humans were made the 3rd Day, before the natural creatures came forth from the water. Science agrees that the first life was in the water, and the cells within our bodies cannot survive without liquid water. I am saying that according to God and Science, life had it's origin in the water. Humans were made long before life came forth from the water. Each of God's "Days" or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length. This places the beginning of our Cosmos at 13.5 Billion years ago. Man was made some 9 Billion years BEFORE any other living creature.

If you're saying humans were made on the third day you're clearly reading the text wrong. There is nothing in the third day that suggests man was created. How are you drawing this conclusion? Are you reading Genesis 1:11-13? There is no mention of man being created at that point....

So you're a day age creationist. You know that time frame fits that of TE, right?

 

[Adaephon]

Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.

Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.

My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?

In Love,
Aman

Because physical evidence clearly shows that that is what happened.

 

[Assyrian]

Dear Assyrian, I believe Theistic Evolutionists, who claim to be Christians, THINK that they can support their views with Scripture, since they believe that man was the last of the created beings. A correct reading of Genesis 2:4-7 shows that man was the FIRST being made instead of the last. I believe that TE is based on an UnScriptural point of view which has been pushed by those who don't believe the bible is true, literally, and use the tradiitonal view of ancient men in a vain effort to support their flawed view. I can understand someone who does NOT believe Scripture taking such a view, but not those who claim to be Christians. Show me where I'm wrong.
In Love,
Aman

The reason the normal YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is the traditional view is because it is the obvious plain reading of the text. Of course there is another long tradition in the church which says that Genesis 1 isn't meant to be read literally. We don't follow that because it is tradition, but because we have come to the same conclusion as church Fathers and scholars like Augustine, Erigena Abelard and Aquinas. However since we do not take Genesis 1 literally, since we do not have a dog in this fight, we are able to be a lot more objective about the plain meaning of the text. You need Adam to have been created on the third day along with all the vegetables to try to reconcile the narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. The integrity, the beauty and the plain meaning of the text are all swept aside in your effort to read things into the text that aren't there. You are trying to preserve the literal meaning of the text, but in the process you destroy it. You can't see the problem because you need so much for it to be read that way.

And can you please learn to use the quote button, your longer posts are simply unreadable.

 

[Aman777]

The reason the normal YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is the traditional view is because it is the obvious plain reading of the text.

Dear Assyrian, I agree and that is PROOF that it cannot be God's Truth. God says:

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

AND

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.


Assyrian:>>Of course there is another long tradition in the church which says that Genesis 1 isn't meant to be read literally. We don't follow that because it is tradition, but because we have come to the same conclusion as church Fathers and scholars like Augustine, Erigena Abelard and Aquinas. However since we do not take Genesis 1 literally, since we do not have a dog in this fight, we are able to be a lot more objective about the plain meaning of the text.

IF God allowed everyone to understand the "plain reading" of the text, there would be no need to Study, but He tells us:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

A plain reading is NOT the same as studying the deep meanings, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Of course, unless one has the Spirit of God inside him, he cannot understand the Spiritual.

Assyrian:>>You need Adam to have been created on the third day along with all the vegetables to try to reconcile the narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. The integrity, the beauty and the plain meaning of the text are all swept aside in your effort to read things into the text that aren't there. You are trying to preserve the literal meaning of the text, but in the process you destroy it. You can't see the problem because you need so much for it to be read that way.

Not so. I have studied the text for more than 30 years in an attempt to understand it. I have looked up each and every word in Hebrew and gathered together two or more witnesses from the Old and New Testament in order to completely understand. I have found that God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History. I enjoy showing others that only by understanding the latest Scientific Truths can one possilby understand Genesis one, which was authored by the Supreme intelligence of Creation. It's PROOF of God.

The problem with the traditional understanding Genesis is because scholars have mixed the thoughts of ancient men with the Superior thoughts of the highest intelligence of existence. Understanding our true origin is like finding a Pearl of great price. It is truly amazing and that's WHY I show everyone who will listen that our God is an Awesome God, and His Truth is remarkable.

Assyrian:>>And can you please learn to use the quote button, your longer posts are simply unreadable.

Ok, but I don't like the italic version, which the program converts my words into. I prefer the "plain". NO pun intended.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Elopez, Sharing a common ancestor with apes is teaching that humans evolved from other creatures, as I posted.
​

Elopez:>>Saying modern humans evolved from other creatures is an inaccurate statement according to TE and evolution itself. Again, we think we share a common ancestor with apes, which is different from what you're saying.

DEar Elopez, I am saying that the "common ancestor" was another living creature. Right? Adam did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature since he was the FIRST creature made. There was NO common ancestor for Adam to evolve from.


Originally Posted by Aman777

This is UnScriptural since Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed long BEFORE any other creature. Here are the verses and an explanation of what they actually say:
​

Elopez:>>Clearly you are beyond confused here. Genesis states that on the fifth day water creatures and birds were created.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

Science agrees that every creature on this Earth came forth from the water. The cells of your body could NOT live without water. 2/3 of your body is water and your blood has the same salinity as the Ocean. We had our origin in the water, exactly as the Truth of God and Science tells us.

Elopez:>>The sixth day it says God created the live stock, then man. So no, even according to a literal reading of Genesis the text does not state man was formed long before any other creature. Anyone that knows how to read can easily tell that, so I really have no clue as to why you're saying this.

Notice that Adam was present when the LORD made the beasts of the field and fowl from the land. Adam named them as the LORD made them. IOW, Adam was already present long BEFORE you think he was made.


Originally Posted by Aman777

These verses are telling us that on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants grew, the LORD made man of the dust of the ground. IF you don't agree, then explain your position. According to these verses man was before ANY other "common ancestor."
​

Elopez:>>The third day is when the plants and other vegetation grew. In order for that to happen the earth would have had to already been made. Genesis, according to a literal reading, confirms both of these ideas. The first verse of Genesis states the earth was made. Man is not even mentioned again until day 6.

I agree and Genesis 2:4-7 is "ADDING" information which was NOT told in Genesis 1:9-12 which shows that the first EARTH was made the 3rd Day and the plants GREW the 3rd Day, exactly as Genesis 2:4-7 tells us. Genesis 1:1 is not telling us when the Earth was made but describing the ingredients God created in the beginning. The "earth" was without form for it had NOT been shaped yet. This happened in Genesis 1:9

Originally Posted by Aman777

Absolutely NOT. I am saying that Humans were made the 3rd Day, before the natural creatures came forth from the water. Science agrees that the first life was in the water, and the cells within our bodies cannot survive without liquid water. I am saying that according to God and Science, life had it's origin in the water. Humans were made long before life came forth from the water. Each of God's "Days" or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length. This places the beginning of our Cosmos at 13.5 Billion years ago. Man was made some 9 Billion years BEFORE any other living creature.
​

Elopez:>>If you're saying humans were made on the third day you're clearly reading the text wrong.

Read Genesis 2:4-7 and tell us what Day the text is speaking of. It tells us man was made AFTER the Earth was made but BEFORE the plants grew. That was the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:9-12

Now read Genesis 2:8-9
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

See? Genesis 1:12 agrees with what happened to the man AFTER he was made. The LORD put him in the Garden and the plants GREW.

Elopez:>>There is nothing in the third day that suggests man was created. How are you drawing this conclusion? Are you reading Genesis 1:11-13? There is no mention of man being created at that point....

I agree. Adam was NOT created in God's Image until AFTER Eve was made. Adam was made the 3rd Day and Eve was made the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 Yet BOTH were "created in God's Image" on the 6th Day. This shows that to be "created in God's Image" is to be born again. Like all men, Adam was first made physically and then later Spiritually. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2

Elopez:>>So you're a day age creationist. You know that time frame fits that of TE, right?

Not so. I am an Old Earth Creationist. Theistic Evolution falsely presumes that Adam was the LAST of the creatures made, when actually Adam was the FIRST creature made. However, Adam and Eve were the first creatures "created in God's Image." They were born again AFTER Cain killed Abel. Genesis 5:1-2

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?

Adaephon:>>Because physical evidence clearly shows that that is what happened.

Dear Adaephon, Not so. The evidence of life ON THIS PLANET shows that the sons of God (Prehistoric man) came forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 Science and History agree. Prehistoric man evolved (adapted) for some 6 Million years after his split from the Great Apes, and began to walk on two feet some 4 Million years ago.

SUDDENLY, in the past 1% of time since mankind first walked on two feet, we changed from animal to human intelligence. Scripture and History agree that we first began to grow food, build cities, and develop technology. This is because Scripture shows that Noah arrived on this Planet and brought the Human intelligence of Adam with him.

In less than 1% of the time since Noah arrived, we have gone from living in Caves and chasing our food, to the Moon and back. Human civilization on this Earth can be traced to the arrival of Noah, who was the FIRST human to step foot on this planet.

This Truth destroys the false notion that we evolved our Human intelligence along with our bodies. We inherited our human intelligence from Adam, the first Human, who was made with a higher intelligence level than ANY other living creature, except God. That is WHY we have the DNA of a prehistoric woman who lived more than 150,000 years ago, and we also have the human intelligence of Adam, who never stepped foot on this Earth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Adaephon]

Aman:>>My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?

Adaephon:>>Because physical evidence clearly shows that that is what happened.

Dear Adaephon, Not so. The evidence of life ON THIS PLANET shows that the sons of God (Prehistoric man) came forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 Science and History agree. Prehistoric man evolved (adapted) for some 6 Million years after his split from the Great Apes, and began to walk on two feet some 4 Million years ago.

SUDDENLY, in the past 1% of time since mankind first walked on two feet, we changed from animal to human intelligence. Scripture and History agree that we first began to grow food, build cities, and develop technology. This is because Scripture shows that Noah arrived on this Planet and brought the Human intelligence of Adam with him.

In less than 1% of the time since Noah arrived, we have gone from living in Caves and chasing our food, to the Moon and back. Human civilization on this Earth can be traced to the arrival of Noah, who was the FIRST human to step foot on this planet.

This Truth destroys the false notion that we evolved our Human intelligence along with our bodies. We inherited our human intelligence from Adam, the first Human, who was made with a higher intelligence level than ANY other living creature, except God. That is WHY we have the DNA of a prehistoric woman who lived more than 150,000 years ago, and we also have the human intelligence of Adam, who never stepped foot on this Earth.

In Love,
Aman

[citation needed]

 

[Assyrian]

Ok, but I don't like the italic version, which the program converts my words into. I prefer the "plain". NO pun intended.

Good start but you need to use the quotes for my comments, and keep your replies outside the quotes.

Dear Assyrian, I agree and that is PROOF that it cannot be God's Truth. God says:

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Read on a few lines. 1Cor 3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
The Christians in Corinth were immature and unspiritual, but Paul was still able to feed them milk. There were truths they could understand. You don't need to be spiritual to understand the plain meaning of the text, it is when God is speaking on a deeper level, especially if God is speaking on a deeper level into our hearts, that we need the Spirit of God.

The chief priests and Pharisees understood the plain meaning of 'After three days I will rise.' Jesus meant he would rise from the dead. Even though they didn't believe he would rise from the dead, they did understand that was what the plain meaning of his words meant. That was why they asked Pilate to place a guard on the tomb to prevent the disciples stealing his body and claiming he rose from the dead Matt 27:63&64.

Of course disagreeing with the traditional interpretation doesn't mean your interpretation has to be the one inspired by the Holy Spirit.

AND

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Darwin was a member of the Royal Society, that verse has his work covered doesn't it.

IF God allowed everyone to understand the "plain reading" of the text, there would be no need to Study, but He tells us:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

A plain reading is NOT the same as studying the deep meanings, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Of course, unless one has the Spirit of God inside him, he cannot understand the Spiritual.

You seem to contradict yourself there. In the first part you suggest even the plain meaning of the text is obscure to anyone without the Spirit of God, then you say it is the deeper meanings we need the Spirit to understand. It is like the parable of the prodigal son. Anyone can understand the story, the plain meaning of the text. It is seeing the deeper meaning that we need a touch of the Spirit of God, seeing how it applies to you, that you are the one who has squandered his inheritance and ended up envying pigs but the your father is waiting longing for you to turn back to him. Or maybe the Spirit is convicting religious people who think they have served God all their lives and are jealous when they see the joy with which God welcomes back their brother.

But there is a difference between that deeper meaning and your interpretation of Genesis. The understanding of the parable is based on the plain meaning of the text, the story remains unchanged but the deeper implications and meanings blossom out of it. What you have done with Genesis is take literal interpretation and rearrange the story. It is like thinking the deeper meaning of the prodigal son is that he ran off with the fatted calf when he left and had a barbecue with the prostitutes.

Not so. I have studied the text for more than 30 years in an attempt to understand it. I have looked up each and every word in Hebrew and gathered together two or more witnesses from the Old and New Testament in order to completely understand. I have found that God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History. I enjoy showing others that only by understanding the latest Scientific Truths can one possilby understand Genesis one, which was authored by the Supreme intelligence of Creation. It's PROOF of God.

The problem with the traditional understanding Genesis is because scholars have mixed the thoughts of ancient men with the Superior thoughts of the highest intelligence of existence. Understanding our true origin is like finding a Pearl of great price. It is truly amazing and that's WHY I show everyone who will listen that our God is an Awesome God, and His Truth is remarkable.

Sorry you haven't addressed my point. Here it is again.

However since we do not take Genesis 1 literally, since we do not have a dog in this fight, we are able to be a lot more objective about the plain meaning of the text. You need Adam to have been created on the third day along with all the vegetables to try to reconcile the narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. The integrity, the beauty and the plain meaning of the text are all swept aside in your effort to read things into the text that aren't there. You are trying to preserve the literal meaning of the text, but in the process you destroy it. You can't see the problem because you need so much for it to be read that way.
​

 

[Adaephon]

I wonder if we should start a debate thread in the Creationism forum, since the OP clearly feels it ok.

 

[ChetSinger]

I wonder if we should start a debate thread in the Creationism forum, since the OP clearly feels it ok.

Please don't. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are already a few TE's who feel compelled to post there.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>This Truth destroys the false notion that we evolved our Human intelligence along with our bodies. We inherited our human intelligence from Adam, the first Human, who was made with a higher intelligence level than ANY other living creature, except God. That is WHY we have the DNA of a prehistoric woman who lived more than 150,000 years ago, and we also have the human intelligence of Adam, who never stepped foot on this Earth.

Adae:>>[citation needed]

Dear Adae, Please be more specific. Do you wish a citation Scripturally, Scientifically, or Historically? Do you have Mitochondrial DNA in your blood? Yes. Do you have the higher intelligence of Adam in your head? Yes, since animals can't type, and only humans can, we can safely say that you are a human, a descendant of the combination of Adam and the descendants of the sons of God (Prehistoric man).

That's exactly what God told us 3k years ago in Genesis 6:4. God wrote Genesis and revealed His Supreme intelligence in His writings. That's God's Truth.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Adaephon

I wonder if we should start a debate thread in the Creationism forum, since the OP clearly feels it ok.

Dear Adaephon, Good idea since both threads could use more postings.
​

Chet:>>Please don't. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are already a few TE's who feel compelled to post there.

What are they afraid of? The Truth? Humans are a Special Creation made FIRST, long before any other living creature. IOW, we did NOT evolve from ANY other creature. I don't think TEs can show that we did, Scripturally. Do you?

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChetSinger]

Originally Posted by Adaephon

I wonder if we should start a debate thread in the Creationism forum, since the OP clearly feels it ok.

Dear Adaephon, Good idea since both threads could use more postings.
​

Chet:>>Please don't. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are already a few TE's who feel compelled to post there.

What are they afraid of? The Truth? Humans are a Special Creation made FIRST, long before any other living creature. IOW, we did NOT evolve from ANY other creature. I don't think TEs can show that we did, Scripturally. Do you?

In Love,
Aman

This sub-forum was set aside by CF for theistic evolutionists to speak with each other without being hassled by creationists. Ditto for the creationist sub-forum. The forum above is the place for us to debate between camps.

 

[Aman777]

Chet:><>This sub-forum was set aside by CF for theistic evolutionists to speak with each other without being hassled by creationists. Ditto for the creationist sub-forum. The forum above is the place for us to debate between camps.

Dear Chet, I suppose it's like preaching to the Choir. No wonder there are so few Choir members, and so few posts.

In Love,
Aman

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Yom doesn't only mean days

Other Uses of Yom


Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses.

Time

It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.
In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?

Year

Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.

Age

Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age," meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says "old age" (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."

Ago

One time Yom is translated "ago." 1 Samuel 9:20 says "As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, ..."

Always

Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime...for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29).

Season

Three times yom is translated "season." In Genesis 40:4, "...and they continued a season in ward." Again, in Joshua 24:7, "dwelt in the wilderness a long season," and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, "...a long season Israel hath been...". In each case yom represents a multi-month period.

Chronicles

When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated "chronicles" (27 times).

Continually

When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).

Ever

Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9, "to walk ever in his ways." Nineteen times Yom is translated "ever." The old testament uses "for ever" instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. I will not list them all (consult Strong's Concordance for a full listing) but here is an example. In Psalm 23:6, it says "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." Here Yom is translated as the final word of this verse, ever. Thus, Yom in this verse, and 16 others, represents eternity.

Evermore

In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated "evermore." Deuteronomy 28:29, "...and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore;" thus representing either a lifetime or eternity.