Theistic Evolution Challenged

[Aman777]

Saya:>>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.

Dear Saya, Thanks for showing that Yom can mean 12 or 24 hours, a lifetime, or Eternity. I have always posted that the 7th Yom is Eternity.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChristianT]

Saya:>>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.

Dear Saya, Thanks for showing that Yom can mean 12 or 24 hours, a lifetime, or Eternity. I have always posted that the 7th Yom is Eternity.

In Love,
Aman

An yet, no one points to Genesis 1 to get an alternate rendering of Yom.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Dear Saya, Thanks for showing that Yom can mean 12 or 24 hours, a lifetime, or Eternity. I have always posted that the 7th Yom is Eternity.

T:>>An yet, no one points to Genesis 1 to get an alternate rendering of Yom.

Dear T, I do. I try to show that each of God's Yoms or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time. We live today on the 6th Yom at Genesis 1:27. We will continue here until Jesus returns to this Earth and gives us dominion over every other living creature, and changes all creatures into vegetarians, and then declares that it is very good. Genesis 1:31 The present 6th Creative Day will then end, and we will enter the 7th Day, the Age of Joy, which is Eternity. Genesis 2:1-3

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChristianT]

Aman:>>Dear Saya, Thanks for showing that Yom can mean 12 or 24 hours, a lifetime, or Eternity. I have always posted that the 7th Yom is Eternity.

T:>>An yet, no one points to Genesis 1 to get an alternate rendering of Yom.

Dear T, I do. I try to show that each of God's Yoms or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time. We live today on the 6th Yom at Genesis 1:27. We will continue here until Jesus returns to this Earth and gives us dominion over every other living creature, and changes all creatures into vegetarians, and then declares that it is very good. Genesis 1:31 The present 6th Creative Day will then end, and we will enter the 7th Day, the Age of Joy, which is Eternity. Genesis 2:1-3

In Love,
Aman

And then creation will be perfected because it will be the age of perfection -- 7 is a holy number.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Excuse but like I said before. if it 6 days than why are the plants seedlings?

Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)
​

The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe,5 Strong's #H1877, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha,6 (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera (Strong's #H2233), which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more than 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Also if the world is only 6,000 this what the bible said is wrong one god said a thousand generations to keep his commands. (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8) . He later go out to state he been angry for 40 years in Psalm. For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest." (Psalm 95:10-11 NIV) 1000x40.


prove me wrong if the god himself state 1,000 generations shall keep my command and late going on to said 40 years his been mad this means 40x 1000 which means 40,00

 

[SayaOtonashi]

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

Day doesn't always mean day Yom is much more flexible.

Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were NOT 24 Hours
Does the Bible Say God Created the Universe in Six 24-Hour Days?

 

[Aman777]

Day doesn't always mean day Yom is much more flexible.

Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were NOT 24 Hours
Does the Bible Say God Created the Universe in Six 24-Hour Days?

Dear Saya, Correct. Yowm is a "period of time" which can be 12 or 24 hours, a lifetime, or Etenity. ie. The 7th Day IS Eternity since it has NO evening and no ending. I believe each of God's Days are some 4.5 Billion years old. Genesis 1 agrees, and shows the 1st Day being 25+ Billion years ago.

The present 6th Creative Day began when Jesus made the beasts of the field and birds and Adam named them. The present AGE will NOT end for at least another thousand years. Want Scripture?

In Love,
Aman

 

[AceHero]

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.

Well, italics are what make quotes readable. If you don't use them you should change the color or boldface them to make your points more legible.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

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

The only problem is yom is not even a literal day

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Look at the herew words used.

Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth “day.” Most young-earth creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for “made” (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered “God had made” rather than “God made.” This indicates God “had made” the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth “day.”8

This view of the fourth “day” has broad support. For example, Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars, states: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day...9 Likewise, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem states: “[Verse 16] Can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before … This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier …”10

So, when were the Sun, Moon and stars created? Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha’ erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence.11 This indicates the heavenly bodies–the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets–were created “in the beginning” prior to the six creation “days.”

Mortenson contends the Earth was created before the other planets. This is because young-earth creationists assume the other planets are among the “lights” God created on the fourth “day.” The text does not support that view. There is no mention of the other planets in the narrative of the fourth “day.” Verse 16 speaks only of the Sun to govern the day, the Moon to govern the night and the stars.

The claim there was light on Earth before the Sun was created is another artifact of the young-earth model. The Bible states on the first creation “day” God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). Because the young-earth model places the creation of the Sun on the fourth “day,” young-earth creationists insist this light came from a different source–many attribute it to God’s radiance (His Shekhinah glory). This is an unnecessary and strained interpretation. The text indicates the light God caused to appear on the first “day” was illumination from the sun in the daytime. This fact is specifically stated in Genesis 1:5.12

Based on the Hebrew word meanings, the following picture emerges. “In the beginning” God created the universe–the Sun, Moon, stars, Earth and planets (1:1). In verse 2, the viewpoint changes to the surface of the Earth (the Spirit of God was hovering “over the waters”). Initially, the Earth was dark (1:2). On the first “day,” God caused sunlight to penetrate the darkness (1:3-5). On the fourth “day,” God caused the Sun, Moon and stars to become visible from the surface of the Earth (1:19-20), having made them earlier (1:16) as part of His creative activity prior to the six creation “days.”

An additional point should be made about the verb “made” (asah) in verse 16. Asah means to fabricate or fashion something13 and is different from the Hebrew verb “create” (bara) used elsewhere in Genesis 1. Bara means to bring forth something brand new by divine fiat.14 God made (asah) the Sun, Moon and stars; He did not bara them. This suggests the heavenly bodies were not instantaneous creations but something God fashioned from the raw materials He created “in the beginning.”

It should also be noted that Genesis 1 does not describe the establishment of calendar days on Earth until the fourth creation “day.” Although the light-dark cycle began on the first “day,” it was not until the fourth “day” God commanded the Sun, Moon and stars to become visible to mark days, seasons and years.15 This is a strong point against the young-earth view that the creation “days” were normal days. At least the first three “days,” preceded God’s establishment of calendar days

 

[gluadys]

Mortenson contends the Earth was created before the other planets. This is because young-earth creationists assume the other planets are among the “lights” God created on the fourth “day.” The text does not support that view. There is no mention of the other planets in the narrative of the fourth “day.” Verse 16 speaks only of the Sun to govern the day, the Moon to govern the night and the stars.

The reason there is no mention of other planets is because they are included among the stars.

It was not until the middle of the 19th century that the word planet, which was originally defined as "a movable or wandering star not fixed to a constellation" to the modern definition of "a type of satellite of a star, which is not itself a star." (This is not a special meaning of the word in scripture but the ordinary everyday meaning understood by everyone from ancient times until the period of the Enlightenment and the new scientific discoveries.)

"Planet" comes from a Greek term for "wanderer".

Note that the Earth is never referred to as a planet in any literature secular or sacred until modern times. The Earth is evidently not a star, and by the earlier definition, would not be considered a planet. Indeed, in scripture it is described as not moving at all! It was discovering, via the telescope, that Venus, Mars, etc. are also not stars which forced the change in the definition. In biblical times, all planets were considered to be stars not fixed to a constellation and so the Hebrew (and Greek) text is written from that perspective.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

actually the 1 genesis states man was created in Genesis on the six day and on the 2 Genesis only speaks of Adam and Eve

on

Multiple Authors in Genesis?

Are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 written by multiple authors, thus producing contradictions? A careful study of the text shows that Genesis 2 is merely a more detailed account of the short Genesis 1 narrative describing the creation of human beings.

Rich Deem


Genesis chapters one and two describe the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth. Some have said that these accounts are purely mythology. One of the reasons for this perception is because of the apparent contradiction between chapters one and two in the creation accounts. Chapter one describes the creation of plants followed by the creation of animals then humans. Chapter two seems to describe the creation of humans followed by the creation of plants then animals. If this assessment is true, it would seem that there is a contradiction between the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis one

Genesis one, the first chapter of the Bible, begins with the creation of the "heavens and earth"1 - a phrase that describes the entire universe. The Genesis one account is notable for being sequential, since the events are listed numerically by the day in which they occurred. Where does this creation take place? Locations mentioned include the heavens (the Hebrew termshamayim can refer to the atmosphere, interstellar space, or God's abode),2 earth (the Hebrew term erets can refer to the entire planet, a people group, or a local piece of geography),3 Sun, moon, and stars.4 How do we know the Hebrew term erets refers to the entire planet as opposed to local geography? Verse 2 describes the "surface of the deep,"5 which describes the primordial ocean.6 Subsequent verses indicate that there was no land until God caused it to appear from the midst of the waters.7 These facts, in the absence of specific place names, suggests that Genesis one describes creation on a global scale.
Genesis 1 vs. 2?

Besides describing the formation of land and seas, Genesis one describes the creation of plants and animals. The account begins with the creation on plants. Following this is the creation of birds, large sea creatures and swarming sea life. On the final "day," God creates the large grazing mammals and carnivores, along with small scurrying mammals. Creation culminates with the creation of mankind - the last creatures God creates. For a more detailed explanation, see The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account and Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation.
Genesis two

Contrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one. How can we determine this to be true? First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different. Part of the problem understanding this passage is because of the poor choice of English words in the common translations. The Hebrew word erets can be translated as "earth" (meaning global) or "land" (referring to a local geographical area). In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.
In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. In fact, Genesis 2 begins with God planting a garden8 in a place called Eden, whose location is described in the text that follows. In all, there are three other place names mentioned along with four rivers (verses 10-14). The second place name is Havilah, which is thought to be near the Caspian Sea.9 The third is Cush, which is thought to be a location in Southern Egypt or Ethiopia.10 The fourth is Assyria, which constitutes modern Iraq and Iran.11 Of the four rivers described in the text, only two are definitively identifiable. The Tigris12 and Euphrates13 Rivers run though Iraq and Iran. All the events of Genesis 2 occur in Eden, which is bounded by the three other locations, putting it within the Mesopotamian flood plain.
The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name.14 Since a suitable companion was not found for Adam, God created Eve.15 The narrative concludes with the initiation of the first marriage.16 All the creation descriptions in Genesis two can be attributed to the preparation of a place in which the first humans would live. Therefore, Genesis two further develops the account of mankind's creation at the end of the sixth day.
Conclusion

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God). For a book that is dedicated to the relationship between humans and God, four verses seems like a rather poor explanation for the creation of God's preeminent creature. This is because Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3. Genesis 2 describes God's preparation of a specific location on earth (Eden) for habitation by the first human beings. Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term "earth" when the Hebrew would better be translated "land." Read a modified NIV translation of the Genesis 2 account to see how the text should read.

 

[gluadys]

on

Multiple Authors in Genesis?

Are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 written by multiple authors, thus producing contradictions? A careful study of the text shows that Genesis 2 is merely a more detailed account of the short Genesis 1 narrative describing the creation of human beings.

Rich Deem

Is all the following also by Rich Deem or is it your own work? I am unclear on this point. I will treat it as your own, though.

Genesis chapters one and two describe the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth. Some have said that these accounts are purely mythology. One of the reasons for this perception is because of the apparent contradiction between chapters one and two in the creation accounts.

This seems to assume that while the first account may be mythology, the second is history. Most scholars today would say both accounts are mythologies.

Where does this creation [in chapter one] take place? Locations mentioned include the heavens (the Hebrew termshamayim can refer to the atmosphere, interstellar space, or God's abode),

It would certainly not include interstellar space as no such concept of the cosmos existed at the time of writing. The concept of interstellar space did not enter any understanding of the universe until the Copernican model of the solar system was adopted and the telescope provided a larger view of the heavens. For the biblical author and his audience, the idea of "interstellar space" would be incomprehensible.

Contrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one.

That is true enough. It is written in an older style of Hebrew and was likely composed two or more centuries before the creation account in chapter one. So it cannot be a retelling of a story which did not yet exist.

It was the final editors of the Pentateuch, not the original writers, who placed the composition of a later date prior to the earlier account.

First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different.

All that is true, and further evidence that the accounts were once separate and existed independently of each other.

In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. In fact, Genesis 2 begins with God planting a garden8 in a place called Eden, whose location is described in the text that follows.

Again true. This is why some scholars believe this account is intended as the origin story of Israel and not of all humanity.

The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name.

This text does not suggest that animals had already been created. Rather it describes their creation as an attempt to provide the man with a companion and helper. One has to distort the Hebrew to give the impression that an earlier creation is referred to here.

Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God). For a book that is dedicated to the relationship between humans and God, four verses seems like a rather poor explanation for the creation of God's preeminent creature. This is because Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3.

That may be true. Since Genesis 1 is likely of more recent origin than Genesis 2-3, the author of Genesis 1 was probably familiar with Genesis 2-3 (while the reverse would not be true). Being familiar with a creation account which focused first and foremost on the creation of humanity, the author of Genesis 1 did not consider it needful to enlarge on the creation of humanity in his own account--which is focused more on the cosmos. (Rather like the gospel of John, the last to be written, does not recount events already existing in the synoptic gospels but provides new material about Jesus not in those sources.)

 

[Papias]

gluadys-

It looks like Saya cut and pasted it from here:

Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?


Saya - it might be more useful to hear your own thoughts?


Papias

 

[kenblogton]

Reply to Aman
The way to refute evolutionary science is with science.
God and Science: The Basics
Science is the study of Nature & Natural Phenomena. All phenomena amenable to scientific inquiry are natural, meaning they consist of space, time, matter or energy; all causes investigated by Science are also natural. Where does this leave God?
God precedes Science. He is the Creator. It's God before the Big Bang; scientific inquiry starts at the Big Bang. But what about how God has affected His Creation since the Big Bang?
What God has done since the Big Bang in the created universe is not a legitimate aspect of scientific inquiry. It's real and true of course, but it's not Science; it's either Theology or Philosophy. This is because God is not a part of Nature, He's its non-physical Creator.
This means that Creation Science or Intelligent Design are not Science. What they say is real and true, but it is philosophy or theology, not Science! The way to show the inadequacy of scientific explanations to scientists is by using Science. Biblical, Theological and Philosophical methods are irrelevant to scientific inquiry! So what does Science show regarding Creation and Evolution?
Bryson, W. 2010. A Short History of Nearly Everything. Toronto: Anchor Canada documents the scientific gaps regarding both the origins of life (361) and the evolution of species due to the absence of intermediate species (487-489).
Thaxton, C.B., W.L. Bradley and R.L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origins. New York: Philosophical Library – who are biological researchers – document the impossibility of the natural origin of life from the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans. Researchers who attempt to simulate the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans and create life find that it is impossible. This is because, in the lab, you cannot obtain only the natural laevo- or left molecular forms of the amino acid building blocks of life; you get equal amounts of the synthetic dextra- or right molecular forms of the amino acids which makes life creation impossible!
Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the origins of species in an abrupt, and not an evolutionary, manner. He also notes the virtually complete absence of intermediate species, seen as essential by Darwin to the Theory of Evolution. Logic also tells us of the impossibility of evolution because the intermediate species will not be fit enough to survive.
Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.” Nature, 31-36 conclude all human females are descended from a single female, referred to as Mitochondrial Eve.
Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. “Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.” Science 268: 1183-1185 conclude all human males are descended from a single male, referred to as Y Chromosomal Adam.
Scientifically, life and species origins would be best referred to as the life and species Big Bangs, one Big Bang for each life form or specie.
I was a believer in primordial soup life origin and evolution of species until I studied the data carefully after I became a believer. Evolution within a species is not controversial; evolution across species is impossible, as is life creation in the lab!
kenblogton

 

[gluadys]

Reply to Aman
The way to refute evolutionary science is with science.
God and Science: The Basics
Science is the study of Nature & Natural Phenomena. All phenomena amenable to scientific inquiry are natural, meaning they consist of space, time, matter or energy; all causes investigated by Science are also natural. Where does this leave God?
God precedes Science. He is the Creator. It's God before the Big Bang; scientific inquiry starts at the Big Bang. But what about how God has affected His Creation since the Big Bang?
What God has done since the Big Bang in the created universe is not a legitimate aspect of scientific inquiry. It's real and true of course, but it's not Science; it's either Theology or Philosophy. This is because God is not a part of Nature, He's its non-physical Creator.
This means that Creation Science or Intelligent Design are not Science.

I am glad you recognize that these are not science. It is questionable however that they are true, even philosophically or theologically. I consider the theology of ID to be anti-Christian as it is little more than god-of-the-gaps and depends on identifying some parts of nature as not being created by God.

So what does Science show regarding Creation and Evolution?
Bryson, W. 2010. A Short History of Nearly Everything. Toronto: Anchor Canada documents the scientific gaps regarding both the origins of life (361) and the evolution of species due to the absence of intermediate species (487-489).

This and some of the other resources cited erroneously conflate the absence of fossils with the absence of species. Since the majority of species have never left any fossil remnant of their existence, the absence of a species from the fossil record is not a sufficient argument of the absence of the species from history.

We actually have a good many intermediate species in the fossil record, but most connect groups larger than species themselves; they connect orders or classes. So we may not have the immediately preceding or immediately following species in fossil form, but we do have a good idea of where the intermediate species connects in terms of its ancestral group and of groups which are derived from it or its close cousins.

Thaxton, C.B., W.L. Bradley and R.L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origins. New York: Philosophical Library – who are biological researchers – document the impossibility of the natural origin of life from the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans. Researchers who attempt to simulate the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans and create life find that it is impossible. This is because, in the lab, you cannot obtain only the natural laevo- or left molecular forms of the amino acid building blocks of life; you get equal amounts of the synthetic dextra- or right molecular forms of the amino acids which makes life creation impossible!

The final phrase is incorrect. This phenomenon does not make the assembly of life-forms from pre-existing molecules impossible. It does make it necessary to determine how the preference for L-amino acids became established. I have a vague recollection of some progress in this area, but can't put my finger on it. Perhaps some of the scientists on this forum can help.

Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the origins of species in an abrupt, and not an evolutionary, manner. He also notes the virtually complete absence of intermediate species, seen as essential by Darwin to the Theory of Evolution. Logic also tells us of the impossibility of evolution because the intermediate species will not be fit enough to survive.

No, he does not document the origin of species in an abrupt manner, but the first appearance of species in the fossil record in an abrupt manner--a very different matter. It is also a misrepresentation of the work done by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge to say there is a virtually complete absence of intermediate species. This is only the case when looking for an transition from one species to the immediately following species. That is a very fine-grained transition which is almost impossible to capture on scales of geological chronology. Intermediate fossil species in a larger time-frame are not uncommon at all.

Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.” Nature, 31-36 conclude all human females are descended from a single female, referred to as Mitochondrial Eve.
Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. “Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.” Science 268: 1183-1185 conclude all human males are descended from a single male, referred to as Y Chromosomal Adam.

You have actually left out a significant qualifier here. Mitochondrial Eve is a single female who is the common ancestor of all LIVING human women, and Chromosome-Y Adam, likewise the common ancestor of all LIVING human men. Mitochondrial Eve was not the ancestor of all human females for she was not the ancestor of her own mother or aunts or sisters or cousins or any human females contemporaneous with her or preceding her. Same goes for Chromosome-Y Adam.

It should also be noted that these individuals lived centuries apart and so are not to be confused with the biblical Adam and Eve.

Evolution within a species is not controversial; evolution across species is impossible, as is life creation in the lab!
kenblogton

It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by "evolution across species". I know you think this is impossible, but I wonder if you could pretend to be an evolutionary biologist for a moment and provide a biologist's explanation of what would be happening if evolution across species is possible. If you were a teacher in a biology class who believed in evolution across species how would you explain it to your students?

 

[kenblogton]

The way to refute evolutionary science is with science.
God and Science: The Basics
Science is the study of Nature & Natural Phenomena. All phenomena amenable to scientific inquiry are natural, meaning they consist of space, time, matter or energy; all causes investigated by Science are also natural. Where does this leave God?
God precedes Science. He is the Creator. It's God before the Big Bang; scientific inquiry starts at the Big Bang. But what about how God has affected His Creation since the Big Bang?
What God has done since the Big Bang in the created universe is not a legitimate aspect of scientific inquiry. It's real and true of course, but it's not Science; it's either Theology or Philosophy. This is because God is not a part of Nature, He's its non-physical Creator.
This means that Creation Science or Intelligent Design are not Science.
I am glad you recognize that these are not science. It is questionable however that they are true, even philosophically or theologically. I consider the theology of ID to be anti-Christian as it is little more than god-of-the-gaps and depends on identifying some parts of nature as not being created by God.
I don't understand how you can say that ID is a god-of-the-gaps. What are these gaps you allude to?



So what does Science show regarding Creation and Evolution?
Bryson, W. 2010. A Short History of Nearly Everything. Toronto: Anchor Canada documents the scientific gaps regarding both the origins of life (361) and the evolution of species due to the absence of intermediate species (487-489).
This and some of the other resources cited erroneously conflate the absence of fossils with the absence of species. Since the majority of species have never left any fossil remnant of their existence, the absence of a species from the fossil record is not a sufficient argument of the absence of the species from history.
If a species leaves no fossil record, how can you know of its existence?
We actually have a good many intermediate species in the fossil record, but most connect groups larger than species themselves; they connect orders or classes. So we may not have the immediately preceding or immediately following species in fossil form, but we do have a good idea of where the intermediate species connects in terms of its ancestral group and of groups which are derived from it or its close cousins.
Again to cite Johnson's Darwin on Trial, According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years.… Because this record is so complete, palaeontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary…“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to the next.” (51)
Connection of supposed pan-specie intermediate groups is mere speculation.




Thaxton, C.B., W.L. Bradley and R.L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origins. New York: Philosophical Library – who are biological researchers – document the impossibility of the natural origin of life from the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans. Researchers who attempt to simulate the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans and create life find that it is impossible. This is because, in the lab, you cannot obtain only the natural laevo- or left molecular forms of the amino acid building blocks of life; you get equal amounts of the synthetic dextra- or right molecular forms of the amino acids which makes life creation impossible!
The final phrase is incorrect. This phenomenon does not make the assembly of life-forms from pre-existing molecules impossible. It does make it necessary to determine how the preference for L-amino acids became established. I have a vague recollection of some progress in this area, but can't put my finger on it. Perhaps some of the scientists on this forum can help.
If it were not impossible, it would have occurred in the last 60 years. The life version of amino acids are all left molecular rotations. The preference was obviously established by God. It is impossible to change the 50-50 left-right amino acid balance in the lab without massive experimenter intervention.



Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the origins of species in an abrupt, and not an evolutionary, manner. He also notes the virtually complete absence of intermediate species, seen as essential by Darwin to the Theory of Evolution. Logic also tells us of the impossibility of evolution because the intermediate species will not be fit enough to survive.
No, he does not document the origin of species in an abrupt manner, but the first appearance of species in the fossil record in an abrupt manner--a very different matter. It is also a misrepresentation of the work done by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge to say there is a virtually complete absence of intermediate species. This is only the case when looking for an transition from one species to the immediately following species. That is a very fine-grained transition which is almost impossible to capture on scales of geological chronology. Intermediate fossil species in a larger time-frame are not uncommon at all.
What is the difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species. To say the first appearance is not the origin is mere speculation.



Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.” Nature, 31-36 conclude all human females are descended from a single female, referred to as Mitochondrial Eve.
Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. “Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.” Science 268: 1183-1185 conclude all human males are descended from a single male, referred to as Y Chromosomal Adam.
You have actually left out a significant qualifier here. Mitochondrial Eve is a single female who is the common ancestor of all LIVING human women, and Chromosome-Y Adam, likewise the common ancestor of all LIVING human men. Mitochondrial Eve was not the ancestor of all human females for she was not the ancestor of her own mother or aunts or sisters or cousins or any human females contemporaneous with her or preceding her. Same goes for Chromosome-Y Adam.

It should also be noted that these individuals lived centuries apart and so are not to be confused with the biblical Adam and Eve.
The biblical Eve was also a single female without mother or aunts or sisters. The data overlap, which permits this Adam and Eve being contemporaneous.


Evolution within a species is not controversial; evolution across species is impossible, as is life creation in the lab!
kenblogton
It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by "evolution across species". I know you think this is impossible, but I wonder if you could pretend to be an evolutionary biologist for a moment and provide a biologist's explanation of what would be happening if evolution across species is possible. If you were a teacher in a biology class who believed in evolution across species how would you explain it to your students?
Horses and donkeys is the best known example of human-attempted cross species evolution: mules are sterile.
kenblogton

 

[mark kennedy]

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

I'm not sure anyone else cares but this is the Theistic Evolutionist forum, don't you think it would be more considerate to challenge them in the common forum? I always thought this should be a place for them to talk among themselves without this sort of thing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sayre]

All are welcome! Aman included