951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

Introduction

One of the  most fundamental questions about nature is: “How did we get here”? In other words, how did we humans – as well as the plants and animals around us – come into existence?

In Western countries, there are two main systems that are used, to explain how, exactly, plants, animals and humans began their existence. Those two systems are called “creationism” and “evolution”.

 

Creationism states that God explicitly created each and every form of life on the earth. In other words, every plant or animal that exists today was created by God in the past – in exactly the form that it has today.

For example, creationism states that at one point in time God explicitly created a shark, at another point in time He created a turtle, and at a third point in time He created a hawk. In addition, when God originally created the shark, the turtle, and the hawk, they had the exact same features (size, shape, color, teeth, claws, etc) that they have now.

 

Evolution holds that plants and animals were not explicitly created – instead, every form of life emerged as a “variation” on a previous form of life. In other words, evolution states that each new form of life came about as an “improved model” of an existing form of life – due to mutations in an organism’s DNA.

For example, evolution states that at one point in time, a strain of fish began encountering mutations in its DNA, which eventually (after many generations) gave its descendants the ability to breathe air and to move around on the earth. As a result, those mutations caused that strain of fish to become frogs. Similarly, at some later point in time, a strain of frogs began encountering mutations in its DNA, which eventually gave its descendants scaly skin and sharp teeth. Those mutations therefore caused those frogs to become lizards.

 

Five detailed explanations

As it turns out, there are several detailed explanations, about the evolution and creationism systems. In fact, there are (at least) five detailed explanations about how life appeared on the earth; and each of those explanations uses either evolution or creationism to explain that process. Those explanations are described below.

(Note: a third system, called “intelligent design”, also discusses the origin of life on the earth. Basically, intelligent design states that the complexity of nature – and the patterns that can be observed in it – make it clear that an “intelligent being” must have designed and built everything in nature. However, to my knowledge, intelligent design does not provide any detailed explanations about exactly how the process of life emerging happened; so it will not be discussed in this post.)

 

1. The “Random Chance Evolution” explanation:

This theory holds that all life on earth evolved, through mutations of existing organisms – and that all of those mutations were completely random. In other words, this theory states that God had absolutely nothing to do, with any life emerging on the earth. (In fact, a great many proponents of this theory are actually atheists.)

This explanation states that the earth began as a completely lifeless planet; and it did not have any life on it for billions of years. At some point, however, a bolt of lightning (or something similar) struck one of the earth’s oceans. That electricity then reacted with protein molecules in the water in precisely the correct way, to cause the formation of a single-celled organism – something like an amoeba.

Then, over the course of millions of years, completely random mutations in those single-celled organisms eventually brought about the formation of multi-celled organisms. Additional random mutations led to the formation of primitive invertebrates, which then led to fish, which led to amphibians, etc.

So, the bottom line for the “random chance evolution” explanation is this: All life emerged on earth, through a very long series of “lucky accidents”.

 

2. The “Deity-Directed Evolution” explanation :

This theory also holds that all life on the earth was brought about through evolution. In other words, this doctrine also states that every single form of life on earth came about, as a “mutated form” of a previous form of life.

However, this theory differs from the “random chance evolution” theory in one important respect: in this theory, God, Himself, actively “directed” the evolution process. That is, God caused the various stages of evolution to occur.

So, for example, this theory also states that the very first single-celled organism came about by a lightning bolt hitting the ocean. However, this theory states that God caused that lightning bolt to occur – rather than the lightning bolt being completely random. Similarly, this theory also holds that mutations caused fish to eventually become amphibians – but it states that God explicitly caused those mutations to occur, rather than the mutations being random.

Interestingly, this particular theory has been accepted by many mainstream Christians.

So, the bottom line for the “deity-directed evolution” explanation is this: God caused all life to appear on the earth – and the mechanism that He used to do that is evolution.

 

3. The “Six Literal Day Creation” explanation:

This doctrine states that God explicitly created every form of life on the earth. In other words, each and every plant and animal was brought about by a creative act of God – i.e., there are no forms of life that arose from mutations of previous forms of life.

In addition, this doctrine takes the creation account listed in Genesis 1 very literally. In particular, when Genesis 1 uses the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning”, this doctrine states that that phrase refers to one literal day – i.e., 24 hours.

For example, Genesis 1:14-18 describe God’s creation of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Then, Genesis 1:19 states that “there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day”. So, this doctrine states that God created the sun, the moon and the stars within one 24 hour period. Similarly, Genesis 1:20-22 describe God’s creation of all of the sea creatures and birds on the earth. Then, Genesis 1:23 states that “there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day”. As a result, this doctrine states that God created all aquatic and avian life on the earth, within one 24 hour period.

So, the bottom line of the “six literal day creation” explanation is this: God explicitly created each and every living thing on the earth (as well as the sun, moon, etc) – and He did it all within six literal days – i.e., 144 hours.

 

4. The “Six Figurative Day Creation” explanation:

This doctrine also holds that God explicitly created every form of life on the earth. However, this doctrine takes a much more “figurative” view of the terms used in Genesis 1.

Basically, this doctrine states that the phrase “there was evening and there was morning” – as well as the word “day” – do not necessarily mean a literal period of 24 hours. Instead, those terms can sometimes refer to a much, much longer period of time – sometimes extending many thousands (or millions) of years.

For example, as noted above, Genesis 1:14-18 describe God’s creation of the sun, moon and stars; and Genesis 1:19 then concludes with: “there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day”. According to this explanation, the phrase “there was evening and there was morning”, and the word “day”, are actually figurative – i.e., they refer to a period of time many thousands (or millions) of years in length.

So, the bottom line of the “six figurative day creation” explanation is this: God explicitly created every form of life on the earth (as well as the sun, moon, etc) – but He took hundreds of thousands of years to accomplish that task.

 

5. The “Gap Theory Creation” explanation:

This doctrine contains some elements of both of the above two doctrines. To begin with, this doctrine takes particular note of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Here are those two verses, from the ESV:

1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

This theory states that an enormous period of time took place, between those two verses. In other words, this doctrine claims that millions of years elapsed, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Basically, this doctrine states the following: during Genesis 1:1, God created the earth. However, it took hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years, for God to create the earth. So, the earth, itself, was not created in a literal 24 hour period.

In addition, God created the dinosaurs, during the “Genesis 1:1” period of time.

Then – in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 – there was a rebellion of some of God’s angels. Basically, some of the angels – led by Satan – revolted against God; and the resulting “war” caused the earth to become desolate. In other words, that angelic war caused the earth to become “without form and void” – i.e., with no life upon the earth.

After the angelic rebellion, God began the process of re-creating life on the earth. That re-creation process is described in Genesis 1:3-31. Finally, this doctrine states that all of the creation activities in Genesis 1:3-31 are actually literal – i.e., all of the fish and birds were created within one 24 hour period.

So, the bottom line for this explanation is this: God created the earth, and every form of life in it. He took hundreds of thousands of years to create the earth itself, and to create the dinosaurs. However, He took six literal days to re-create life on the earth, after the angelic rebellion.

 

Are any of these beliefs supported by Scripture?

All of the above explanations are “interesting”, of course – but the more important question is: are any of those explanations supported by the Bible? In other words, do any of the above theories harmonize with the Scriptural account of creation?

First off, consider the “random chance evolution” theory. That theory states that all live emerged on the earth through completely random, undirected events – i.e., that God did not have anything to do with creation.

Of course, the idea that God did not have anything to do with creation is directly contradicted by Scripture:

Genesis 1:1 (ESV):

1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Job 38:4 (ESV):

4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.

Isaiah 44:24 (ESV):

24Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
I am the LORD, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself

Basically, the “random chance evolution” theory tries to “explain away God” – i.e., it tries to completely remove God from creation entirely. Of course, Scripture explicitly states that God, Himself, created the entire universe – so as a result, the “random chance evolution” explanation is diametrically opposed to Scripture.

 

Next, consider the “deity-directed evolution” explanation. That theory states that God caused all life to emerge – but the method that He used to do that is evolution.

Initially, this theory sounds attractive – it seems to provide a way to “join” science and Scripture together. This is one reason why some Christian groups have accepted it.

However, when we look deeper into this explanation, some problems arise. As mentioned, according to evolution, every single form of life arose as a “mutated version” of a previous form of life. So, amphibians arose as mutations of fish, reptiles arose as mutations of amphibians, etc.

So, if we carry out that process all the way to the top of the “food chain”, we arrive at the following conclusion: humans arose as mutations of apes!

Not only that, but according to evolution, every new form of life starts off as an offspring of an existing form of life. For example, a mutated amphibian – which will become a reptile – must be the offspring of a “normal” amphibian. So, if evolution is true, that means that the very first humans must have been the offspring of apes.

In other words, according to evolution, Adam had a mother – and his mother was an ape!

So, let’s take a look in Scripture, to determine if Adam was actually the son of an ape:

Genesis 2:7 (KJV):

7And 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.

According to Scripture, Adam did not have a mother at all – instead, God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground, and then filled his body with the breath of life. So, Adam did not even have a human mother – let alone an ape mother…

 

From the above information, it appears to me that both of the “evolution-based explanations” – i.e., explanations #1 and #2 – are explicitly contradicted by Scripture. As a result, I definitely do not accept either of those explanations for how life appeared on the earth.

 

Thoughts about the creation-based beliefs

All three of the remaining explanations are creationism-based. In other words, all of those explanations stated that God explicitly created each form of life – i.e., life did not evolve from previous life forms.

From what I can see, each of those three explanations has some positive points – and some negative points. In other words, I can acknowledge the arguments that are used to promote each of those explanations – but I am not completely convinced by any of them.

In other words, my mind is not “completely made up”, about explanations #3, #4 or #5 – unfortunately.

There are a number of items that are worth mentioning, about those three explanations. In other words, the items below are “food for thought”, about the plausibility of the three creation-based explanations.

 

The meaning of the word “day”

As noted above, the creation account in Genesis chapter 1 uses the following phrase, over and over again, after God completes a set of creative activity:

“And there was evening and there was morning, the <ordinal number> day.”

That phrase certainly seems to indicate that literal 24-hour days are being described. If that is true, then of course that would completely eliminate the plausibility of the “six figurative day” explanation.

However, in some cases, the word day can be used in a figurative sense. For example, we might use the phrase “In my grandfather’s day, things were much different.” Certainly, that use of the word “day” does not mean 24 hours – it means the period of time in which your grandfather lived.

In addition, Scripture contains some passages which state that God views the passage of time in a much different way than we do – and some of those passages actually use the word “day”. Consider these passages:

Psalm 90:4 (NIV):

4 A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8 (ESV):

8But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So, even Scripture itself has several different meanings of the word “day”.

Of course, in the Genesis 1 account, the word “day” is preceded by “there was evening and there was morning”. That phrase, when used with “day”, would definitely seem to indicate a 24 hour period.

However, let’s consider the words “evening” and “morning” for a moment. How do we determine when an evening ends, and when a morning begins? We use the sun, of course – when the sun sets, an evening ends; and when the sun rises, a morning begins.

The reason why that is important is because of the order of creation in Genesis 1. Consider this verse:

Genesis 1:16,18 (ESV):

16And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

The above passage tells us that God created the sun (and the moon and stars) during the fourth day. In other words, the sun did not exist at all, during days 1, 2 and 3!

So, if the sun, itself, did not even exist, then the terms “evening” and “morning” do not have their “normal” meanings. For example, how can a normal “morning” begin, if there isn’t any sun to rise over the horizon? As a result, it certainly seems possible that the term “day” in Genesis 1 might not be a literal 24 hour period – especially for days 1 through 4.

 

Did dinosaurs ever co-exist with humans?

The “six literal day” doctrine states that God created all animal life forms that ever existed on the earth, during two literal days – days 5 and 6. If that is true, then of course that means that at one point in time, dinosaurs and humans were both living on the earth, concurrently. In other words, some humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs were living.

Most scientists would completely mock such an idea, of course. However, does Scripture give us any possibility that some humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs? Consider this passage, in which God talks to Job:

Job 40:15-18 (ESV):

15“Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.

Most mainstream groups believe that the “behemoth” listed is either a hippopotamus or a rhinoceros. However, that passage states that the tail of the behemoth is like a cedar – i.e., like a tree trunk. The hippo and the rhino do not have tails like tree trunks, though – they have tails like ropes.

Note, however, that a number of dinosaurs had tails that were extremely similar to tree trunks. For an interesting discussion on Job 40, see this link.

Of course, even if the behemoth actually is a dinosaur, that does not necessarily mean that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. For example, God could have mentioned the behemoth to Job, even if the behemoth had already become extinct – hundreds of thousands of years before Job was born.

I tend to doubt that possibility, though – because in ancient times, people’s ability to store and retrieve information was rather limited. (There was no internet to gather information from in those days…) As a result, it seems unlikely to me that God would describe a creature in such painstaking detail to Job, unless Job was able to see a living representative of one of those creatures.

So, if the behemoth actually is a dinosaur, then it seems likely to me that that at least one member of that species was actually living at the time that God made that statement to Job.

 

Was there any life on earth, before the six days in Genesis?

The “gap theory” of creation states that during the Genesis 1:1 time frame, God created the dinosaurs on the earth. Given that many dinosaurs were plant eaters, that means that God must have created some plants on the earth for those dinosaurs to eat as well.

However, does Scripture give us any indication that there was any life on the earth, before the six days listed in Genesis 1? Consider this passage:

Genesis 2:5-9 (ESV):

5When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That passage certainly seems to indicate that there were no plants on the earth – at all – until the time that God created humans. If that is the case, then that would contradict the idea that any plants (and dinosaurs) lived in a completely different “creation time frame” than humans. In other words, it would seem to eliminate the possibility that some plants – and dinosaurs – lived in the world, before an angelic rebellion destroyed all life on the earth.

Of course, some people claim that the plants that are mentioned above are only “domesticated” plants – i.e., plants that humans must explicitly care for. However, some of the plants listed there are trees – and trees can survive without humans caring for them, right?

The final item to note on this issue is the concept of an “angelic rebellion”. The entire “gap theory” rests upon the idea that angels destroyed God’s initial creation – i.e., His creation of dinosaurs (and their plants). To my knowledge, the only explicit mention of an angelic rebellion is in the book of Revelation – and that rebellion definitely took place after God had created humans. Not only that, but that rebellion does not mention anything about all life on the earth being destroyed.

So, it is certainly possible that there was an angelic rebellion, which laid waste to the entire world – but I cannot find any explicit reference to one. As a result, I have a hard time placing definite credence into the “gap theory” explanation; since that entire explanation presupposes that just such a rebellion took place.

 

Conclusion

As mentioned above, the five explanations for how life appeared on the earth are all very interesting. However, from what I can see, explanations 1 and 2 are directly contradicted by Scripture; so I definitely do not believe that either of those theories hold water.

The other three explanations all look to have certain items in their favor, but also have other points which appear problematic. So, I have not been able to definitively make a choice among them yet.

Fortunately, I would say that determining the exact time frame that God used to create us is not a “salvation issue”. In other words, our eternal life does not depend upon us finding the correct choice between explanations 3, 4 and 5. The subject is definitely very interesting, however!

 

46 Responses to “The “Creationism vs. Evolution” Debate”

  1. on 31 Oct 2011 at 4:34 amFiona

    Hi Brian
    This was a really interesting read, and raised a number of questions that I had never really thought about before, maybe, as you said, because it’s not vital for our salvation. Thank you for setting it all out so well. Like me, perhaps you look forward to the day when we can find out the real facts from our Creator!

  2. on 31 Oct 2011 at 8:22 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Just focusing on dogs, I wondered if Noah took one of each type of breed on the ark or just one pair of dogs. (I actually think the whole story is probably just a parable, but it is still interesting to contemplate.)

    Wikipedia summarizes the secular view on this in that it is most likely that dogs sprung from wolves and the estimate was that happened about 16000 years ago. If so, that means all the varieties of breeds that exist today all happened within 16000 years. Now, dogs have been specifically bred, so this isn’t really evolution acting on its own, but it does show what is possible.

    I personally think micro-evolution does happen (variations within species and even divergence within a species to the point a separate species results). But from my understanding, the evidence to support macro evolution is weak.

  3. on 01 Nov 2011 at 11:32 amBrian Keating

    Hi Tim,

    As it turns out, I originally intended on bringing up the subject of “variations within a species” in this post; but the post became too large.

    In any case, it appears to me that the so-called “micro evolution” – i.e., variations within one species – is definitely possible. After all, the dog and the wolf are part of the same species (Canis lupus); the only difference is that the dog is in the subspecies “familiaris”. Also, as you mentioned, even among the dog breeds there is great variation (compare the features of a Scottish Terrier to a Great Dane).

    However, the so-called “macro evolution” – i.e., wholesale changes in DNA, which cause an organism to migrate from one genus to another (or from one family to another, for that matter) – does not look possible. For one thing, it is contradicted by Scripture. Not only that, but the fossil record does not appear to support it, either.

    Brian

  4. on 01 Nov 2011 at 8:37 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim (a.k.a. Antioch),
    I also believe that micro-evolution does happen. I believe God can use evolution like a painter uses a paint brush and that He can create anything that He wants. I have my own theory behind the story of Noah’s Ark (since you brought it up). I watched this science show once, and they were talking about this huge flood that happened in Asia about 600 years before the time of Noah.

    Apparently there was a huge deep lake high in the mountains and one of the walls supporting the lake suddenly gave way causing a catastrophic flood that would have covered about 2,000 square miles. By examining the geography of the area they have estimated that this flood would have lasted at least 40 days before the water would have subsided. Sound like a familiar story???

    I believe that Noah built an Ark that was just big enough for himself and his family, and 2 of each of his domesticated animals. Animals that he and his family would have needed to restart their lives after the flood. If Noah and his family would have been caught up in the middle of this great flood, it would have appeared to them (from their perspective) that the whole world had flooded. There would have been nothing but water for as far as the eye could see.

    Since writing hadn’t been invented yet, this story would have been passed on orally from generation to generation. Over time the details would have become blurred and the story eventually changed from taking 2 of each of the domesticated animals, to taking 2 of every animal on earth. And the Ark went from it’s original size of maybe about 100-150 feet long to being 300 cubits long. Which from what I understand is well over one thousand feet long (which of course would have been impossible for one man, or a small group of men, to build).

    So I don’t really consider the story to be parable as such. I actually believe the basic facts regarding the story are more or less true, but that details became blurred over time, as the story was being orally passed down over many generations…

  5. on 02 Nov 2011 at 10:59 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Assuming Moses wrote Genesis (which I don’t have any reason to doubt), did he write it of his own understanding of these stories or did God direct what he wrote?

  6. on 02 Nov 2011 at 8:41 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim (aka Antioch),
    From what I understand the book of Genesis represents the oral history that had been passed down to the Israelites, who by the time Moses had arrived were being enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that these Jewish slaves had any written books, or other writings, that had been passed down to them from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph.

    From what I understand Moses was the first one to put all these stories, that had been passed down orally from generation to generation, into writing. I don’t see any evidence that God directed Moses in the writing of Genesis. It is clear however that God directed Moses in the writing of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc… I don’t think that Moses spent his time with God talking about Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, etc… These stories were already well known to the Israelites through their oral history.

    The problem with oral history is that the details become blurry over time. Written history is of course much better, in that the original documents will last for many generations. Of course eventually they grow old and tattered and are then transcribed and rewritten on to new scrolls. So as long as the scribes are careful when rewriting the new scrolls (which all indications are that they were) then we can consider that this written history is very accurate.

    Much more accurate than the oral history that was written down in Genesis…

  7. on 07 Nov 2011 at 10:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Everyone,
    I’m not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I just read a post by a brother by the name of Clement Taylor on another blog and I thought it was so good that I wanted to post it here for anyone who might be interested.

    – quote – A soul without HOPE, cannot ask for Help, but who is your HOPE in? Who ever you HOPE in is who you decide to give your Trust to. The HOPE that you give someone or something gives you either a TRUE sense of SECURITY, or a false sense of security. Therefor, because of your HOPE, where does your sense of SECURITY comes from, where do your TRUST live? Is it with Yourself, the World, Man, or the Father of Jesus Christ? Examine your Hope, and it will truly reveal your FAITH…. – unquote –

    I think it sort of fits in with this creationism vs evolution debate… 🙂

  8. on 12 Nov 2011 at 1:54 amJoshua

    Two notes on this article:

    “Creationism states that God explicitly created each and every form of life on the earth. In other words, every plant or animal that exists today was created by God in the past – in exactly the form that it has today.”

    1) Some creationists may say that. But modern Young Earth Creationist scientists and non-scientist YECs (like me) observe and acknowledge variations within a species. Did you know that the tallest man in the world and the shortest man in the world are both from Inner Mongolia?

    Variations are limited and they are only made possible by the variety inherit in their original genetic code, which is getting smaller and smaller these days. You can have variations within species, but never new information added, only a loss or duplication of existing information.

    So, if the sun, itself, did not even exist, then the terms “evening” and “morning” do not have their “normal” meanings. For example, how can a normal “morning” begin, if there isn’t any sun to rise over the horizon? As a result, it certainly seems possible that the term “day” in Genesis 1 might not be a literal 24 hour period – especially for days 1 through 4.

    2) Yes, but the word “day” can mean a literal 24-hour period. Something to keep in mind is: Do words get their figurative meaning before or after their literal?

    And don’t forget that in Jewish society, “days” begin at night.

    Good thought-provoking article. Keep it up!

  9. on 12 Nov 2011 at 3:02 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hello Joshua,
    I haven’t heard from you in a long time. I didn’t realize that you were still hanging around here. I didn’t know that the tallest man in the world and the shortest man in the world are both from Inner Mongolia? That does seem like quite the coincidence. My friend Tim V. always says, “There is no such thing as coincidences, there are only God incidences!”

    I myself am an “Old Earth Creationist”. I do not believe the story of creation was talking about “literal” 24 hour days. I am not afraid of science. I believe that God created science just like he created everything else. Of course if God created it then it cannot contradict God’s word. If it appears that it does, then either the science is flawed in some way or our interpretation of God’s word is flawed in some way.

    I believe that God intended for us to find these fossils of early life on the planet. I believe that it reveals the nature of God and His majesty and greatness. I believe that God reveals Himself (His character) through His creation. I look at a complexity of a spider spinning it’s web and I realize that there is no way that this could have evolved through random selection, as the Theory of Evolution states.

    Certainly there must have been a intelligent designer behind these complex and perfectly balanced ecosystems we see all around us. I can understand why some people believe in a young earth (under 10,000 years old). I just don’t happen to agree with them. May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all, and guide us in “all” our studies and endevours.

    God Bless…

  10. on 14 Nov 2011 at 9:23 amJoshua

    Hey, Thomas!

    Thanks for your kinds words. I appreciate them!

    Grace and peace to you, too.

    Joshua

  11. on 13 Apr 2012 at 12:46 amtimothy

    Brian Keating,

    You wrote:

    (Note: a third system, called “intelligent design”, also discusses the origin of life on the earth. Basically, intelligent design states that the complexity of nature – and the patterns that can be observed in it – make it clear that an “intelligent being” must have designed and built everything in nature. However, to my knowledge, intelligent design does not provide any detailed explanations about exactly how the process of life emerging happened; so it will not be discussed in this post.)

    And this just appeared on my facebook:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FfVbx7S0TW8

    Timothy 8)

  12. on 13 Apr 2012 at 9:35 pmMargaret

    This is a great article, Brian, with a good outline of several different theories. And I really appreciate the courteous exchange of differing views afterwards.
    I agree with the general consensus regarding evolution. I’m not sure how much diversity micro-evolution can explain, but I believe that distinct species (as distinguished from sub-species) were created specifically by God.
    There are three statements, though, that I would like to address. I’ll start with this one:

    In particular, when Genesis 1 uses the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning”, this doctrine states that that phrase refers to one literal day – i.e., 24 hours.

    I have studied this question a lot, so I’ll copy and paste what I have already written. Forgive me if it is too long.

    Before the word “day” is used in the narrative of Genesis 1, God tells us exactly what it means. It is the name given to LIGHT (Gen. 1:5).
    To add emphasis to this definition, we are told that God separated light from darkness before calling the light “day” and the darkness “night”.

    God gave no name to a unit made up of day and night together. Such a combination would have been a reversal of his action in separating them. He intended us to understand the word “day” to mean LIGHT, and to make use of that definition in the narrative that follows.

    That is how the word is used throughout the Bible. In Exodus 20:11, for example, men are told to work six days and rest on the seventh day. Not six 24-hour days, but six natural days, lasting from sunrise to sunset.

    For us, too, a natural day lasts from sunrise to sundown. That’s why a day in summer is longer than a day in winter. That’s why we can talk about hiking for several days in the Yukon, without having to explain that we didn’t hike at night. We seldom use the word any other way.

    The 24-hour day, beginning and ending at midnight, is an artificial (and relatively modern) way to make the measurement of time uniform from one season to another and from one location to another. But a natural day is a day of sunlight.

    How many hours are there in a normal, natural day?
    The Lord’s question in John 11:9 assumes that all his hearers knew the answer: “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” So his advice to them was to walk in the day, when they have light to see. Anyone who walks in the night is going to stumble, because there is no light in him.

    His message obviously conveyed a spiritual lesson; but it was based on what they already knew about an ordinary day. A natural day is a twelve-hour day.

    But the Lord also used the word “day” as a period of time marked by divine light. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day,” he said in John 8:56. And again, “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is still day” (John 9:4). Why? “The night is coming, when no man can work.”
    As before, he was using the word “day” in a way that his hearers understood. They were familiar with “the day of temptation in the wilderness,” a day that lasted forty years (Psalm 95:8). So are we. They knew that “the day of visitation” was a period of “time” (Jeremiah 50:27). We know that “the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2) is with us still. And so on.

    They knew that such “days” have nothing to do with days of sunlight, followed by nights of darkness. Instead, they were periods of time marked by some particular “work” that God was doing. And God’s action in separating the light from the darkness takes on new meaning. There are no nights where God dwells.

    The evidence seems conclusive. A 24-hour day is foreign to the Bible. Whether the word means a normal 12-hour day of sunlight, OR a long period of divine activity, it means light, not darkness; day, not night.

    So what about “evening” and “morning”? Are there any clues as to what that means?

  13. on 13 Apr 2012 at 11:16 pmDoubting Thomas

    I agree Margaret,
    An evening in Genesis would have been the end of a period of time marked by some particular “work” that God was doing. And the morning would have been the beginning of a period of time marked by some particular “work” that God was doing. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze… 8)

  14. on 14 Apr 2012 at 9:06 amMargaret

    That’s the way I see it, too, Tom. You have summarized the principle perfectly. But I want to add what I was able to find out about the words “evening and morning” as evidence to support what you say:

    Genesis does not define “morning” and “evening” for us, but there is plenty of evidence that they meant the same thing in Bible times that they mean to us today. “Morning” is the beginning of the day. “Evening” is the end of the day. So man’s work begins in the morning and ends in the evening (see Psalm 104:22-23).

    If we understand morning as sunrise and evening as sunset, then “morning to evening” is a whole day (Ex. 18:13), and “evening to morning” is a whole night (Lev. 24:3).

    Things that happened in the morning AND in the evening (2 Chronicles 13:11) were actions that did not continue all day; and things that happened in the evening AND in the morning (Exodus 16:8) did not continue all night.

    Morning can also mean the period of time from sunrise until the sun stops rising at noon. And evening can include the period of time from noon until sunset. If the words are understood that way, then morning and evening together make a whole day, but night is not included. I can find no example of “evening and morning” referring to a 24-hour day.

    Then what can we understand from “and there was evening and there was morning, day one”?

    Evening was the end of the day. But because there is no night involved in God’s divine days, the evening of one day is the beginning of the next. So there is evening (the end of one day’s work) and there is morning (the beginning of the next day’s work) merging together at the end of “day one” [Hebrew yohm echad].

    A similar idea can be found in Zechariah 14:7, where the same two Hebrew words [yohm echad] are found, translated “one day”. That chapter is all about the day of the Lord, a long day. It is a dark day, with “no light” (v. 6). But in the evening – when you would expect darkness – “there shall be light”. There is no night between the evening and the light. They occur together.

    This light in the evening appears to be the beginning of a new day. It is the end of the dark day of Yahweh, and the beginning of a brighter day for Israel. It is the end of their long rejection of the Messiah and the beginning of his reign. (See ch. 9:9, which alludes to both.)

    The similarities between this passage and Genesis 1:5 are remarkable – even though one is past and the other is future. In both cases, there is light in the evening. In both cases that light in the evening marks the beginning of a new day. And in both cases, the Hebrew words are identical: yohm echad – day one.

    As “day one” is connected with light, so the “third day” is connected with life.
    And Christ, who is our life, was raised from the dead on the “third day,” victor over death and the grave.

    The Word of our God is awesome.

  15. on 14 Apr 2012 at 9:17 amSarah

    Margaret,

    You made some very good points, and you’ve obviously researched your topic in depth. Here’s a question. You argue that “day” always means light and not darkness. Yet there are instances where “day” is clearly associated with darkness. How would you reconcile these with your argument? For example:

    Amo 5:18 Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be darkness, not light.

    Amo 5:20 Will not the day of the LORD be darkness, not light–pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness?

  16. on 14 Apr 2012 at 11:39 amMargaret

    Right, Sarah. Thank you for the reminder.

    The thing that characterizes each of those “days” (I think) is the WORK that God is doing in each. For example, in Zechariah 14, the day of the Lord (from Israel’s point of view) was dark, but it ended in light. Just as “day one” in Genesis was dark, but ended in light.

    Nevertheless, the work of God is always essentially light, even when we can’t see it. In fact, I find that encouraging. I may be walking in the dark, so far as human understanding is concerned; but there is no darkness in God. I’ll find light if I focus on what he is doing.

    Are you familiar with the book called Daily Light? I was impressed this morning with the evening verses for April 14. They are all about light, in a spiritual sense. I’ll quote a few:

    The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light (Is. 60:19)
    [God] who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (1 Peter 2:9)
    Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet [fit] to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light .. and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son (Col. 1:12-13)
    Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light (Eph. 5:8)
    The path of the just is as the shining light [even in the midst of darkness], that shineth more and more unto the coming day [of unhindered light] (Proverbs 4:18)

    Thank God for the gift of his written words.

  17. on 14 Apr 2012 at 2:34 pmSarah

    Margaret,

    I haven’t of that book before, but I like the verses you quoted. Thanks for sharing.

  18. on 14 Apr 2012 at 2:35 pmSarah

    Haven’t *heard* of that book, I should say…

  19. on 14 Apr 2012 at 5:42 pmRay

    It seems to me that a day of light to one or more who may be in darkness, could be unto them a time of being dismayed or confused.

  20. on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:06 pmMargaret

    Genesis 2:5-9 (ESV):
    5When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, …
    That passage certainly seems to indicate that there were no plants on the earth – at all – until the time that God created humans.

    The article “Because It Had Rained”, by Mark Fatuto, makes sense out of Genesis 2:5-7, for which I am grateful to God. [This post by Justin Taylor includes a summary of the same article. It is easier to read than the original article.]

    Here is the hypothesis, without any evidence.

    There are six statements in those three verses. The first two statements describe a problem:
    1. There was not yet any shrub of the field – no wild vegetation that depends on rain.
    2. No plant of the field had yet sprung up – no cultivated plants that likewise depend on rain.
    [Note: Both the shrub and the plant are in the FIELD. There is no mention of trees. This has to do with a specific location, and has nothing to do with the vegetation that had covered the land areas since the third day.]

    The next two statements give the reasons for this condition in the field.
    1. The primary reason: The Lord God had not yet sent rain. (So neither shrub nor grain could grow.)
    2. The secondary reason: There was no man to cultivate the ground for cultivated crops.

    The last two statements give the solution to the problem:
    1. A mist (fog? cloud?) rose from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
    (Whatever “mist” refers to, it WATERED the entire surface of the ground. And since the problem was caused specifically by a lack of rain, this watering of the ground seems to suggest that God solved the problem by sending rain.)
    2. God formed a man to cultivate the ground and raise plants for food.

    So God solved the two problems stated in the initial conditions by sending rain and by forming a man.

    That makes sense to me, and it fits the Hebew text.

  21. on 17 Apr 2012 at 4:58 amtimothy

    Ray,

    What does the first rain have to do with these verses?

    Genesis 6:
    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

    Genesis 7:
    4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

    12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

    21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

    23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

    Pretty dogmatic, HUH ? GOD accomplished what he wanted by causing it to rain.

    In the real world…..some use a mist spray to grow their organic gardens.

  22. on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:42 amRay

    I don’t see anything wrong with using a spray of mist to grow gardens with.

    I saw on TV where some place in the Southwest use a mist spray to keep their patrons cool that they might more comfortably converse.

  23. on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:47 amRay

    I tend to go along with the actual 6 day creation of the world, for it seems to me that God had it made by Christ who made it just as it was envisioned by God.

    So it seems to me that when the earth was divided from the waters, it might not be as we might envision it, but it became as God had it in mind.

  24. on 17 Apr 2012 at 12:02 pmRay

    I still wonder about Melchisedec, how he got to where he was.

    Could it be that this Salem, (Gen 14,) was spiritual Salem as well as the one on earth at the time of the meeting of these kings?

    At any rate, we all came from Adam who was made of the dust of the ground. We did not evolve out of a lightning bolt hitting a living cell or anything like that.

  25. on 17 Apr 2012 at 1:42 pmMargaret

    Notice the REASON that things were not growing. It was because God had not yet sent rain (v. 5).

    If a mist could do the job just as well as rain, why would the LACK of rain be given as the reason for no plants?

    The hypothesis that the “mist” was actually the rising moisture making clouds, from which rain comes and waters the earth, fits the Hebrew words used, and fits the context.

    It also leaves intact the plants that God caused to grow on the dry land on day 3. There was rain there, too – if rain is necessary for the growth of plants, as verse 5 certainly implies.

    Genesis 2:4(b) begins man’s account; and the language fits the particular location of the “land” that the men of the OT were familiar with.

    That is how erets should be translated here, I believe.

  26. on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:43 pmRay

    It seems clear to me that the scripture is saying that although there was not yet a man to till the ground, and although it had not yet rained, there was a mist that came up from the earth, and as it watered the whole face of the ground, every plant of the field grew.

    (Gen 2:5,6)

  27. on 18 Apr 2012 at 1:53 amtimothy

    Ray,

    These verses are related to post # 21…

    2 Peter 2:
    4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

    These angles caused the rain, trying to prevent the birth of Jesus Christ.

    5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    MIST today is fog. Fog, when the dew point is reached, forms droplets of water. These water droplets sustain plant life. In some cases it is called the green house effect. In triple canopy jungles the areas are called rain forests.

    There was even a river to water the Garden along with the mist. GOD made it perfectly, perfectly perfected. And Adam had a green thumb!

    The flood, when it first rained, was 1656 years after the creation of Adam. That means that it did not rain for 1656 years and still the plant kingdom thrived.

    Melchizedek was GODs high priest and the king of Salem. Salem was, still is and will be in GODs kingdom to come, a very important geographical area. **JERUSALEM**

    Why not take the time to watch the video I linked in post # 11 ?

    IMHO i have not intended to offend anyone…….. 8)

  28. on 18 Apr 2012 at 8:16 amRay

    The sons of God were the ones who were led by the spirit of God, who walked in the wisdom of God and called upon his name, but fell away from him. They became great and mighty men, robust sinners, oppressive leaders, and their sins were great.

    Therefore God himself sent the rain which caused the flood, but saved only Noah and his family, eight in all.

    The Lord Jesus Christ, in the Spirit of God preached to these souls who were imprisoned by their sins, before the flood came. He did so in order to save them from the wrath of God that was ahead. Jesus did this because he is the light of God.

  29. on 18 Apr 2012 at 8:18 amRay

    Jesus is the high priest of Salem, Jerusalem, Portland, Chicago, and any other place where the godly gather together in his name, for the sake of righteousness, justice, goodness, truth, sanctification, wisdom, etc.

  30. on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:05 amtimothy

    Ray,

    Amen brother.

    8)

  31. on 25 Apr 2012 at 4:29 pmDoubting Thomas

    Everyone…
    I have some unusual beliefs about the story of Adam and Eve that I would like to share. I don’t try to force my beliefs on to anyone, but I do enjoy discussing my beliefs with others.

    In Gen 1 on the 6th. day God creates man and woman in his own image and immediately tells them to be fruitful and multiply. This seems to be their main purpose. After God rests on the 7th. day it starts to talk about how Adam and Eve were created. They were not created at the same time like the man and women on the 6th. day were. Adam was created first then Eve was created later.

    They were also not told to be fruitful and multiply. They seemed to be very different in nature from the man and women created on the 6th. day in Gen 1. Adam and Eve were like innocent small children who didn’t even realise they were naked. They didn’t seem to have any sexual attraction of any kind. There purpose was not to be fruitful and multiply, but to tend the garden.

    Then the fall came and they lost their innocence and realised that they were naked. It was after this that Adam seemed to be sexually attracted to Eve and she ended up bearing Cain. After Cain killed Able he was afraid of being sent away from God to wander the earth. He was afraid that the people of the surrounding area would kill him.

    Who were these people??? It seems to me that they were the descendants of the man and woman that were created on the 6th. day and told to be fruitful and multiply. From my reading of Genesis Adam and Eve do not have another child until after Cain finds a wife and has children of his own.

    Gen 4:25, “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him’.”

    So at this point (Gen 4) Eve finally has someone to replace her beloved son Abel who was of course killed by Cain. Of course I don’t believe that this is in any way a salvation issue. It’s just my own personal understanding of the story…

  32. on 25 Apr 2012 at 6:32 pmtimothy

    Doubting Thomas,

    I agree with all you have written and believe there is some sort of poetry with the story.(like Sarah posted)

    God made the animals for man and made woman as a *help meet* for man.

    If asked to make a multiple choice test question…..seems that an “all of the above” would be the correct answer.

    Revelations 4:
    11 Thou art worthy, O Lord(GOD), to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. 8)

  33. on 25 Apr 2012 at 10:24 pmMargaret

    It’s an interesting idea, Tom. I had not thought of it that way, but it’s a possibility.

    And – as you say – it is not a salvation issue.

  34. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:13 amTim (aka Antioch)

    DT,

    I have been working off a very similar theory, trying to prove it wrong. The one difference is whether Adam and Eve were told to multiply or not, I just assumed they were.

    I have been wondering of late how it reconciles that Adam and Eve were husband and wife yet Jesus tells the Sadducees that there is no marriage after the resurrection (Mk 12:25). If Adam and Eve and marriage was God’s original plan, it seems that has changed?

  35. on 26 Apr 2012 at 1:53 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim (aka Antioch),
    I don’t see anything where God tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Maybe it was part of his original plan that eventually they would have developed (evolved) enough that they could have partaken of the tree and good and evil and then developed into adulthood and begin reproducing. It seems to me that although Adam and Eve had fully grown bodies. They were still like young children in their emotional and mental capacities (they didn’t even know they were naked).

    You ask a good question about if marriage was part of the original plan, then why has that changed now. Since there will be no marriage after the resurrection. I never thought of that before. Maybe God only wants a certain number of children to be raised to eternal life. After all the earth can only support a limited number of people comfortably. Could you imaging how many children a person could have if they lived forever???

    These of course are just my own thoughts on the subject. I want to thank timothy, Margaret and yourself for responding to my post. I was just curious what other people might think of my unusual interpretation… 🙂

  36. on 26 Apr 2012 at 3:56 pmtimothy

    Doubting Thomas and Tim(aka Antioch)

    Genesis 1: (kjv)
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    [one man & one woman]

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, **Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth**, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Genesis 8: (kjv)
    15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,

    16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

    [four men & four women]

    Genesis 9: (kjv)
    1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, **Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth**.

    Matthew 22: (kjv)
    30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    1Corinthians 15: (kjv)
    22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

    44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

    46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

    Revelations 22: (kjv)
    8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

    9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

    It is written! 8)

  37. on 26 Apr 2012 at 6:51 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    timothy,

    Gen 1:27 (NIV) So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    I do not think it means one pair but many. Now, perhaps Adam and Eve were His ‘agents’ and he created mankind through them. Don’t know for certain but that it is ‘many’ is the way it strikes me. Besides, in Gn 2:5, it seems Adam was created before there was any shrub on the earth (day 3) yet mankind was created after that (day 6)?

  38. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:00 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim (aka Antioch),
    That is an interesting observation. I will need to think about that… 🙂

  39. on 27 Apr 2012 at 9:58 amSarah

    DT,

    I just wanted to let you know I read your post (#31) and found it very interesting. I will have to process some of your observations and compare them with my current understanding of Genesis. Thanks for sharing a different perspective, however “unusual” it may be 🙂

  40. on 11 May 2012 at 10:35 amSarah

    DT, Tim (aka Antioch), et al:

    Ran across a very interesting article that may shed some new light on this debate. I’m still mulling on the implications. Curious what you guys think of it. Here’s an excerpt:

    Firstly, it has been assumed by many that Genesis 1:26-27 is speaking about Adam and Eve only (male and female), and that those who were “begat” through and after them were simply a “by-product” of the first man and woman. With a thorough and diligent study of Genesis in the Septuagint and several chapters elsewhere in His Word, it can be revealed to us that all men (male and female) were “made” inclusive on the sixth day of creation. Just like all grass and all trees were made on the third day, and all animals were made on the fifth and sixth days.

    The Septuagint says, concerning the end of the sixth day, “And the heavens and earth were finished, and the whole order of them” [Let there be…(Genesis 1:3, 6, 14), Let the…(Genesis 1:9, 11, 20, 24), Let them…(Genesis 1:15), Let us…(Genesis 1:26)]. You see, God set everything in order in the first six days of creation.

    But we do not find that God “formed” any living thing until Genesis 2:7, wherein the text reads that he “formed the man” (Adam) and “the man” became a living soul. Notice that Genesis 1:26 does not read “Let us make the man…” (singular, as it is used in Genesis 2:7 when God formed Adam), it reads “Let us make man…” (plural).

    Full article: http://ecclesia.org/truth/1-2.html

  41. on 11 May 2012 at 11:50 amSarah

    p.s. I’m not necessarily endorsing all theological content on this site. Just thought this particular article was interesting.

  42. on 11 May 2012 at 12:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hi Sarah,
    That was an interesting article, but I don’t quite understand how something could be made but not formed yet. Maybe I’m a bit dim witted, but it doesn’t seem to make much sense to me…

  43. on 11 May 2012 at 1:03 pmSarah

    DT,

    I think the theory is that when God “made” things in days 1-6, it was referring to him organizing his plan for creation, and then he actually brought them into existence after this.

    It’s obviously not the standard reading of Genesis. I’m still deciding if I agree with it or not, but thought I would throw it out there for some additional “think outside the box” material… 🙂

  44. on 11 May 2012 at 2:49 pmSarah

    Hmm…upon further thought…their argument skims over the Hebrew word ‘bara’ – created – in Gen 1:21 in reference to creatures of the sea on Day 5. And it also doesn’t explain God’s instructions to the creatures to multiply in vs 22 and 24. So I don’t think they’ve adequately supported their premise after all. Ah well, back to the drawing board 😉

  45. on 11 May 2012 at 7:17 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Thanks Sarah – interesting read, I will probably have to go over it several more times for it to sink in more. I think they make an interesting distinction between ‘made’ and ‘formed’ – I’ve got a lot of verses swirling in my head that could be impacted by that idea.

    DT – what comes to my mind is a movie analogy. The screenplay can be done and all the actors hired and props and locations all set, but they still need to shoot the film. ‘Made’ is somewhat analagous to getting all the people and things to the studio whereas ‘formed’ is when those things actually appear in the film. I think too that this might somewhat explain the ‘go forth and multiply’ if by that we are not seeing any new persons or things brought into the studio, just bringing the persons and things that are already there before the camera.

    Another theory to put through the Berean gauntlet 🙂

  46. on 09 Sep 2012 at 11:54 pmDT

    “According to Scripture, Adam did not have a mother at all – instead, God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground, and then filled his body with the breath of life. So, Adam did not even have a human mother – let alone an ape mother”

    Here is where the theistic evolutionist argument is misrepresented. We do believe Adam was created from the dust. Because the ape was an amoeba before it was a human. 😀

  

Leave a Reply