Biblical evidence for OEC/evolution?

[FlimFlamboyant]

I know this has been debated a number of times in the past, but I am starting this thread in response to a discussion I was having with Glenn Morton in another thread. I am particularly interested in hearing what he has to say, and I have invited him to participate in this thread. Others may feel free to participate as well, though I am primarily interested in his view. It is his opinion that the Bible teaches evolution, as he has stated to me in another thread.

Please note that I have placed this thread in the Christianity section for a reason; that reason being that I am interested only in discussing what the Bible has to say about this issue. I am not a scientist, thus I don't care, nor do I feel qualified to discuss the matter from that perspective.

As I'm running out of time here for today, I'll invite Glenn to go first. Why do you believe the Bible teaches evolution?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Ok, since Glenn doesn't seem to have an interest in going first, I will. I wouldn't normally post back-to-back, but in all fairness, I think it's necessary for me to do so. He brought to my attention to his website where he attempts to reconcile the Bible with his OEC/evolutionist viewpoint. I'll deal first with his Biblical proofs for evolution, where I will respond to various points he makes in an article on his website.

(Disclaimer: In the article, Glenn states "This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made." so I am assuming I have permission to duplicate at least portions of it here.)

Why do I believe that the Bible teaches evolution? The issue to me is grammatical, not the Hebrew. The issue lies in what is the subject (the active agent) in the sentence.

Lets start with Genesis 1:11

The main thrust of the first portion of the article is the idea that God commanded the earth to bring forth plant and animal life; that it was the earth that actually produced these living organisms, and that God did not hand-make every single form of life on this planet. This much I agree with, which means that a good portion of this article isn't even up for debate. Toward the end of this first section, he sums things up by stating:

So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth...
I have no problem with that at all. However, he makes a fantastic leap of logic in the very next sentence:

... I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.
First of all, let us be clear that what Glenn is arguing for in this portion of the article is not evolution at all, which is defined as:



A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.

Biology.



Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Evolution describes a process of change, not origin, which is what Genesis 1:11 is speaking of. God commanded the earth to bring forth grass. The earth then complied and brought forth grass. No evolutionary process of change is in any way implied in this verse, only the origin. We both agree on the origin in this case. Later in the article, he does go on to attempt to make a Biblical case for evolution by, oddly enough, telling us what the Bible does NOT say:

This verse also illustrates the fact that there is NO verse in Scripture which says, Plants yield plants after their kind. By that I mean where plants is both the subject and object of the sentence. Grammar requires that if plants are incapable of evolution, that there should be a statement in which plants are said to reproduce plants after their kind. What the Bible actually says is:

‘earth bring forth... fruit tree yielding fruit kind’

The tree yields fruit kind. What kind of tree is it? A fruit tree. Well, fruit trees bring forth fruit kind today but that is not the same as saying ‘fruit trees reproduce fruit trees after their kind.’

(Jam 3:12) Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? ...

Apparently, the answer to this rhetorical question is "yes", if you ask Glenn Morton.

Like with the geological pictures, if the YECs could point me to one verse in which it says "animals reproduce animals after their kind" or "plants reproduce animals after their kind" one would have to give up the idea that the Bible possibly teaches evolution. But so far no one has done that.

(by "plants reproduce animals after their kind", I am assuming he meant to say "plants produce plants after their kind")

(1Co 15:37,38) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Every type of seed has been assigned its own body by God himself. Indeed, the seed does produce a body after its own kind. A wheat seed will not bear corn; likewise a corn seed will not bear wheat. There is absolutely no indication in the scriptures that this would be naturally prone to change at any time. In fact, exactly the opposite is implied.

[grmorton]

Ok, since Glenn doesn't seem to have an interest in going first, I will. I wouldn't normally post back-to-back, but in all fairness, I think it's necessary for me to do so. He brought to my attention to his website where he attempts to reconcile the Bible with his OEC/evolutionist viewpoint. I'll deal first with his Biblical proofs for evolution, where I will respond to various points he makes in an article on his website.

First off, I would have preferred to do this over in the science forum, where we started. Given that I work 12-14 hour days, I don't have a lot of time to search for new forums to get involved in.

(Disclaimer: In the article, Glenn states "This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made." so I am assuming I have permission to duplicate at least portions of it here.)

That is what my web site says. But you didn't give the link which is unfair to the readers here, and maybe a bit unfair to me. There are 4 pages I think are at the heart of my harmonization.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gen1-11.htm
and
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm

Other pages can be reached at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm



The main thrust of the first portion of the article is the idea that God commanded the earth to bring forth plant and animal life; that it was the earth that actually produced these living organisms, and that God did not hand-make every single form of life on this planet. This much I agree with, which means that a good portion of this article isn't even up for debate. Toward the end of this first section, he sums things up by stating:


So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth...

... I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.

This is not a fantastic leap of logic. If one boils everything down in the modern world view, at heart, science, observational science tells us that the earth brought forth life. If that is what the Bible also says, then why do we wish to then deny evolution? God said, 'Earth bring forth....' The earth is the subject of the sentence, not God. The sentence doesn't even say, 'God brought forth...', the earth is the active participant which is what the subject of a sentence is.


[quote]First of all, let us be clear that what Glenn is arguing for in this portion of the article is not evolution at all, which is defined as:



A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.

Biology.



Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Evolution describes a process of change, not origin, which is what Genesis 1:11 is speaking of. God commanded the earth to bring forth grass. The earth then complied and brought forth grass. No evolutionary process of change is in any way implied in this verse, only the origin. We both agree on the origin in this case. Later in the article, he does go on to attempt to make a Biblical case for evolution by, oddly enough, telling us what the Bible does NOT say:

Give me a break and please don't try to define words ex post facto. It is very clear that I am arguing for both abiogenesis AND evolution in this passage. The earth brought forth life, first by abiogenesis, and then by evolution.



(Jam 3:12) Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? ...

Apparently, the answer to this rhetorical question is "yes", if you ask Glenn Morton.

Ask a farmer today the same question and you will find that they grow such things as a beefalo(cow+buffalo), Tangelos (mandarin Orange and Grapefruit), triticale (rye and wheat), there are ligers (lion-tiger crossbreeds), Plumcots (plums and apricots), peachcots (peach and apricots) and cherrycots (cherry and apricots). So, yes, it is quite possible for one tree to give rise to a new fruit. The Bible isn't wrong, given the context of the statement. One can't rip a statement out of context and then turn it into a law of nature.



(by "plants reproduce animals after their kind", I am assuming he meant to say "plants produce plants after their kind")

But no where in Scripture is there a statement with 'plants' as the subject and 'plants' as the object of the SAME sentence as you write above. That grammar simply is NOT in the Scripture. Nowhere are plants said to produce plants AFTER THEIR KIND. The EARTH is told to produce plants after their kind. Can't you see the difference between having Earth as the subject and plants as the subject of that sentence? Why did God put 'Earth' as the subject of the sentence, when you believe he really meant to put 'plants' as the subject? Are you correcting God?

(1Co 15:37,38) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.


This does not rule out change, if it did, why do we have all those plumcots?

[quote]Every type of seed has been assigned its own body by God himself. Indeed, the seed does produce a body after its own kind. A wheat seed will not bear corn; likewise a corn seed will not bear wheat. There is absolutely no indication in the scriptures that this would be naturally prone to change at any time. In fact, exactly the opposite is implied.

So where do the cherrycots, beefalos and other hybrids come from if God ruled this out, no man should be able to do what God has ruled out. I think you mis-read the sentence

Earth bring forth plants after their kind

and correct God's mistake (in your mind) and tell God he should have said:

Plants bring forth plants after their kind.

But, God inspired the word he did, and not the word you want him to have inspired. It is a bad thing to do to tell God he didn't do what you think he should have.

[FlimFlamboyant]

First off, I would have preferred to do this over in the science forum, where we started. Given that I work 12-14 hour days, I don't have a lot of time to search for new forums to get involved in.
No search necessary, as I provided a nice, shiny link. Anyway, I don't imagine others would have appreciated a strictly Biblical discussion in their forum.

That is what my web site says. But you didn't give the link which is unfair to the readers here, and maybe a bit unfair to me.
My appologies for that; I should have provided those. It slipped my mind.

This is not a fantastic leap of logic. If one boils everything down in the modern world view, at heart, science, observational science tells us that the earth brought forth life.
"The earth brought forth life" is not synonymous with "the earth brought forth a single-celled organism that eventually evolved in to a wide variety of creatures" (or however you'd like to put that).

Give me a break and please don't try to define words ex post facto. It is very clear that I am arguing for both abiogenesis AND evolution in this passage.
Yes, it is very clear that this is your intention. While you may be able to make a case for some form of "abiogenesis" in Genesis 1 (only with God's prompting, of course), what is not clear is how you get evolution out of Genesis 1:11.

Ask a farmer today the same question and you will find that they grow such things as a beefalo(cow+buffalo), Tangelos (mandarin Orange and Grapefruit), triticale (rye and wheat), there are ligers (lion-tiger crossbreeds), Plumcots (plums and apricots), peachcots (peach and apricots) and cherrycots (cherry and apricots). So, yes, it is quite possible for one tree to give rise to a new fruit.
To a large extent, this is only true because of man's direct intervention. This is why I added an important little word to my statement:

"There is absolutely no indication in the scriptures that this would be naturally prone to change at any time. In fact, exactly the opposite is implied."

I should probably correct myself, however, now that I think about it. Wheat and corn are of course grain products. I can't adamantly declare that these two didn't share a common ancestor at some point. However, in a strictly Biblical sense, the idea of, for example, fruit trees and corn sharing the same ancestor doesn't seem plausible. I say this because of the distinction made between the herb-yielding seed and fruit trees in Genesis 1:11.

But no where in Scripture is there a statement with 'plants' as the subject and 'plants' as the object of the SAME sentence as you write above. That grammar simply is NOT in the Scripture. Nowhere are plants said to produce plants AFTER THEIR KIND. The EARTH is told to produce plants after their kind. Can't you see the difference between having Earth as the subject and plants as the subject of that sentence? Why did God put 'Earth' as the subject of the sentence, when you believe he really meant to put 'plants' as the subject?
I don't understand what you are trying to say, unless you have already forgotten that I had previously expressed my agreement with the idea that it is the earth itself that brought forth these forms of life. God simply issued the command. However, there is no indication in Genesis 1 that the various species of plants that we see today are strictly the product of millions/billions of years of evolution (change). In fact, the implication appears to be that the earth produced at least some of this diversity right from the start.

(Gen 1:11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

The earth produced them all at God's command. It doesn't say that it started with grass, then waited until some of it evolved in to herb yielding seed, then waited even longer until they evolved in to fruit trees, etc. The same goes for animal life. There is no indication in Genesis that God issued a command to bring forth animals only to have the earth produce some single-celled organisms, then wait a few millions years until they evolved in to the diversity of creatures that we see today.

(Gen 1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

(Gen 1:24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

It is interesting to note that God commands the waters to not only bring forth aquatic creatures, but birds as well. It is not until verse 24 that God actually issues the command to the earth (not to the waters) to bring forth land-based creatures. This flies in the face of a great deal of evolutionary thought, which traditionally has birds evolving from land creatures. Of course, I am unaware of where you stand on that particular issue.

(1Co 15:37,38) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

This does not rule out change, if it did, why do we have all those plumcots?
In the case of plumcots; they are the product of man's intervention. I'll grant you the possibility that there is greater diversity of fruit types today than there once were, but I think you carry the interpretation way too far.

So where do the cherrycots, beefalos and other hybrids come from if God ruled this out, no man should be able to do what God has ruled out. I think you mis-read the sentence
Again, I didn't intend to suggest that such things were not possible via any means. However, to a large degree, these are things that do not naturally occur. It is man's intervention that have brought forth these things. That's not to suggest that some degree of natural change is impossible, of course. For instance, the obvious distinctions in the various human races proves that natural change is possible at least to some degree.

(1Co 15:39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Perhaps if you could take me to a zoo where there are shark/pidgeon hybrids on display, I'd find the concept of evolution slightly more compelling. Until then, I don't see the scriptures supporting the idea that the various forms of animal life we see around us today share a single ancestor. The same goes for plants.

[grmorton]

No search necessary, as I provided a nice, shiny link. Anyway, I don't imagine others would have appreciated a strictly Biblical discussion in their forum.

They wouldn't mind. I have had them there before. That is the science/religion forum.


My appologies for that; I should have provided those. It slipped my mind.

As we say in China, Mei wen ti---no problem


"The earth brought forth life" is not synonymous with "the earth brought forth a single-celled organism that eventually evolved in to a wide variety of creatures" (or however you'd like to put that).

There are a couple of things you, and most YECs don't understand about Genesis 1. When it says things like:

God said, 'Let there be light', and it was so, the Bible does NOT tell us WHEN it was so. All we know is that it was before the time of the writer of Genesis. God didn't say "let there be light and it was so" (note where the quotation marks are. God said, 'let there be light.' someone else wrote 'and it was so'. Because of this structure of Genesis 1, we are learning from the writer ONLY that things were created BEFORE his time. This leaves us lots of leeway for time, and for God to create the first single-celled animal and let it evolve.

For this reason, it really isn't clear from Genesis that God didn't do it by evolution. YOu can only say that IF and only IF you say that the Genesis text means INSTANT creation of what God spoke of.

So let's look and see if what God speaks always happens instantly? It doesn't. God spoke of the messiah at the fall, but he didn't appear instantly. God has spoken to the prophets of events in the future which didn't happen instantly. So one can't say that just because God speaks it must happen instantly.

What the YEC interpretation is is instant pudding.


Yes, it is very clear that this is your intention. While you may be able to make a case for some form of "abiogenesis" in Genesis 1 (only with God's prompting, of course), what is not clear is how you get evolution out of Genesis 1:11.

The EARTH brought forth living systems AFTER THEIR KIND. The whole process is contained in that phrase, which, by the way says absolutely NOTHING about the reproductive limitations on an animal. REcall that I said that nowhere can it be found in Scripture the statement that animals give rise to animals after their kind. That is what everyone thinks "Earth gives rise to animals after their kind' means, but, of course, that is not the same meaning or sentence at all!!!! Also, if an animal could not produce animals NOT after its kind, you would not be able to find things like coyote-dog hybrids, or beefalos, etc.


To a large extent, this is only true because of man's direct intervention. This is why I added an important little word to my statement:

NOt so, hybrids are found throughout nature without any human intervention. Coyotes, wolves and dogs all interbreed occasionally. Plants create hybrids on their own and mankind finds them useful and so saves them from either oblivion or improves them.

"There is absolutely no indication in the scriptures that this would be naturally prone to change at any time. In fact, exactly the opposite is implied."


Of course, nothing of the sort is implied whatsoever. Can you find a single verse that clearly says that animals can't change. You know, that in order for you to fulfill this claim you must find a sentence which has ANIMALS as the subject of the sentence. Sentences with Earth as the subject simply won't do at all. So, what verse precisely implies that animals and plants can't change?


I should probably correct myself, however, now that I think about it. Wheat and corn are of course grain products. I can't adamantly declare that these two didn't share a common ancestor at some point. However, in a strictly Biblical sense, the idea of, for example, fruit trees and corn sharing the same ancestor doesn't seem plausible. I say this because of the distinction made between the herb-yielding seed and fruit trees in Genesis 1:11.

Why? Isn't this really just your bias? You don't like evolution so you allow only so much evolution and then shut it all down with no good reason for the evolution you allow and don't allow? Tell me where in the Bible it says that corn and wheat can have a common ancestor and corn and fruit trees can't. Please, tell me what version of the Bible you are using, cause it must be different than mine.


I don't understand what you are trying to say, unless you have already forgotten that I had previously expressed my agreement with the idea that it is the earth itself that brought forth these forms of life. God simply issued the command.

Well, if the earth brought forth the life and God didn't directly bring forth the life, then what on earth is your problem with evolution. That is exactly what evolution says. [b]I would note that because of the silly and erroneous YEC interpretation, Christians missed a wonderful opportunity to interpret the Bible correctly and predict science's discovery of evolution. This sily and erroneous interpretation comes from the inability to see that there is a grammatical difference between the sentence

Earth bring forth living creature according to its kind

and

Living creature bring forth living creature according to its kind.

One of those sentences is found in the Bible, the other isn't and is a man-made belief system, but it is highly unscriptural, but highly popular.

However, there is no indication in Genesis 1 that the various species of plants that we see today are strictly the product of millions/billions of years of evolution (change).

You should take a look at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm. In that paper I show that the Bible teaches that the earth is very very old, contrary to what the YECs say.

In fact, the implication appears to be that the earth produced at least some of this diversity right from the start.

IF and ONLY IF you assume that what God speaks must happen instantly. That is, you believe in instant pudding theology. I don't. God speaks many times about things that take lots of time to happen. If your instant pudding theology is correct, please tell me precisely what verse in Genesis 1 says something like:

God said, Let there be something INSTANTLY!. As far as I can tell the word instantly isn't found in Genesis 1. Can you please point out to me where the word 'instantly' occurs? Or a synonym of 'instantly'?

You can't, and thus the entire YEC enterprise is a vast adding to the Bible of things which are NOT found in the Bible.

(Gen 1:11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.


Please tell me where the Bible says WHEN it was so? Was it so instantly, or was it so only from the writers viewpoint. Tell me how I can differentiate the truth here.


The earth produced them all at God's command.

Sure, but it doesn't say the earth produced them instantly. Please show me that verse. If you can't, then you are adding to the Bible something that simply isn't there. If you can't prove instantly then you are a believer in instant pudding theology.

It doesn't say that it started with grass, then waited until some of it evolved in to herb yielding seed, then waited even longer until they evolved in to fruit trees, etc.

Actually evolution doesn't say it began with grass. Grass is a later addition to earth's vegetable mass.


The same goes for animal life. There is no indication in Genesis that God issued a command to bring forth animals only to have the earth produce some single-celled organisms, then wait a few millions years until they evolved in to the diversity of creatures that we see today.

The fact that God or the writer didn't say 'and it was so INSTANTLY' is an indication that you can't be certain of your position. Please show me where instantly occurs in Genesis 1. You can't and thus you can't possibly be certain you are correct, unless you assume that you are an infallible intepretor of scripture.

(Gen 1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


What did the bringing forth? Why, it wasn't God, it was WATER!!!!! Pay attention to the subject of the sentence. (oh why don't they teach good English in Schools anymore?)


(Gen 1:24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

What brought forth the animals? Why it was THE EARTH, not God directly. When was it so? Well it simply doesn't tell us when it was so. Please show me the word instantly in the above verse. If you can't, then your assumption that God was a magician rather than an engineer or biologist is certainly questionable.


It is interesting to note that God commands the waters to not only bring forth aquatic creatures, but birds as well. It is not until verse 24 that God actually issues the command to the earth (not to the waters) to bring forth land-based creatures. This flies in the face of a great deal of evolutionary thought, which traditionally has birds evolving from land creatures. Of course, I am unaware of where you stand on that particular issue.

No it doesn't. All land life came out of the waters, both amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. We all came from the water--and by golly, the Bible was ahead of its time, (only if you don't swallow the clearly falsified YEC interpretation.


In the case of plumcots; they are the product of man's intervention. I'll grant you the possibility that there is greater diversity of fruit types today than there once were, but I think you carry the interpretation way too far.

So, here you seem to imply that mankind can override rules laid down by God. IF God really said living beings can't bring forth different living beings, then clearly mankind is greater than God because what God outlaws and says can't happen, mankind accomlishes. Is this really your view, that mankind is more powerful than God?


Again, I didn't intend to suggest that such things were not possible via any means. However, to a large degree, these are things that do not naturally occur. It is man's intervention that have brought forth these things. That's not to suggest that some degree of natural change is impossible, of course. For instance, the obvious distinctions in the various human races proves that natural change is possible at least to some degree.

OK, so you believe in change only not so much change. Is this meant to be taken as meaning that you only believe in the change which YOU personally will allow and no more? Who made you the judge of how much change God allows, especially when you can't show me a verse which says:

Animals give rise to animals after their kind.

You didn't address this issue in your reply to me. Please tell me where this verse is, or have the honor to acknowledge that it doesn't exist. You know, lots of lurkers reading our exchange will know that it doesn't exist even if you don't acknowledge that it doesn't exist.

(1Co 15:39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.


Of course all flesh is not the same. They have evolved into different creatures. This verse says absolutely nothing about the propensity for speciation or even familation. It only notes the obvious that today each animal flesh is different. Big deal. That says nothing about evolution.

Perhaps if you could take me to a zoo where there are shark/pidgeon hybrids on display, I'd find the concept of evolution slightly more compelling. Until then, I don't see the scriptures supporting the idea that the various forms of animal life we see around us today share a single ancestor. The same goes for plants.

Where did I say that hybridization is unlimited? Where does evolution say that. This shows how desparate you are to change the topic. You wanted to talk about the Biblical issues, show me from scripture where it says 'animals give rise to animals after their kind'. You can't show me a sentence like that with animals or plants as the subject. YOur theology is based upon a make believe verse which doesn't exist.

[Assyrian]

I could understand God creating everything instantly, or over a long period of time. (Not that I could actually understand how he did it, but it makes sense that he could.) Again, I could understand the earth producing all the different species, through natural processes, over billions of years. However I do not see how the earth could produce animal instantly. God could. The earth couldn't. It can't work miracles.

As Genesis says it was the earth that produced the different species, I don't see how it could have used anything other than natural processes and long periods of time. It's not God, it can't work instantly.

Blessings Assyrian

[FlimFlamboyant]

There are a couple of things you, and most YECs don't understand about Genesis 1.
Rather, there are a couple of ideas that I have already heard of and reject regarding Genesis 1. One of them is your "Days of Proclamation (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm)" theory. The problem is, there is absolutely nothing in the text itself that would prompt someone with no prior agenda to see God issuing all of his commands before the first day even began, as you propose in your article. Someone would have to be approaching it already convinced of evolution in order to feel the need to make it say that.

For this reason, it really isn't clear from Genesis that God didn't do it by evolution. YOu can only say that IF and only IF you say that the Genesis text means INSTANT creation of what God spoke of.
...
So let's look and see if what God speaks always happens instantly? It doesn't. God spoke of the messiah at the fall, but he didn't appear instantly. God has spoken to the prophets of events in the future which didn't happen instantly. So one can't say that just because God speaks it must happen instantly.
There are also plenty of instances where God spoke something and it happened instantly. For example:

(Mat 21:19,20) And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

So now what? "Well, I only said that it's possible that it didn't happen right away". Ok, but you can't use prophecy as concrete evidence to build your case. Besides, God's words in Genesis 1 are not stated as being prophetic, anyway. He is issuing commands, not prophecies.

What the YEC interpretation is is instant pudding.
What's wrong with instant pudding? Coming up with cutsey phrases like "instant pudding" in a vain attempt to make my position look child-like is hardly evidence.

The EARTH brought forth living systems AFTER THEIR KIND. The whole process is contained in that phrase
"After their kind" is the same as saying "millions of years of evolution"??? You must have some uncanny knack for reading between the lines that I don't have. "After their kind" is merely a statement of diversity, not progression.

which, by the way says absolutely NOTHING about the reproductive limitations on an animal. REcall that I said that nowhere can it be found in Scripture the statement that animals give rise to animals after their kind.
I never claimed that it did. You need to get the whole "He's a dirty, stinking, stupid YEC, therefore he believes this way" idea out of your head if we're going to make any progress here.

Why? Isn't this really just your bias? You don't like evolution so you allow only so much evolution and then shut it all down with no good reason for the evolution you allow and don't allow? Tell me where in the Bible it says that corn and wheat can have a common ancestor and corn and fruit trees can't.
My "instant pudding" interpretation of Genesis 1:11 tells me that they were both created on the same day separately.

Well, if the earth brought forth the life and God didn't directly bring forth the life, then what on earth is your problem with evolution. That is exactly what evolution says.
No, it is not, because we're not talking about evolution in this instance, we're talking about origin. From my "instant pudding" perspective, God issued a command to bring forth a variety of creatures, and the earth complied; bringing forth a variety of creatures ("after their kind"), not a single-cell organism that eventually became a variety of creatures.

I would note that because of the silly and erroneous YEC interpretation, Christians missed a wonderful opportunity to interpret the Bible correctly and predict science's discovery of evolution.
Nah, we didn't miss a chance to predict anything:

(2Ti 4:3,4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

You should take a look at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm. In that paper I show that the Bible teaches that the earth is very very old, contrary to what the YECs say.
Been there, done that, decided not to by the t-shirt. From your article:

Clearly this word (olam) has the connotation of eternity or eternal, which is why I said it has a connotation of the infinite.
Clearly in many contexts, it does. However:

(Gen 6:4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old (olam olam), men of renown.

So let me get this straight... These children were born to women, then became mighty men that were infinitely older than their own mothers? It is clear that you can't assume a single definition of this word and apply it to every context, as you have in this article. Not only that but, "olam olam" can be applied not only to the oldness of a thing, but the longetivity of a thing as well; something else that you failed to take into account in your article.

Now, when faced with a word like olam, in a context like this:

Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting[olam] hills kjv

What is one to think?
I think those hills are going to be there a very long time, that's what.

A word used to express God’s eternal nature, past and future is applied to the hills. A look at other translations of this passage don’t help us out of the problem.
That word is also used to describe the mighty men who were born of women in Genesis 6; so what?. Context, man, context! It's an expression of how high, great, and long-lasting the blessings of Jacob are.

If the word progenitor applies to the progenitors of the hills, then this translation ensues.

Gen 49:26 Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills." NIV
Only that translation doesn't ensue; the word "progenitor" simply means "parents". Jacob is saying that his blessings are even greater than those of his parents. It would be a good idea to stick with more reputable translations than the NIV.

Everlasting hills? That makes them quite old. But this isn’t the only place that this phrase appears. Olam is also used to describe hills in Deut. 33:15:

Deut 33:15 And for the chief things of the ancient (qedem) mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting(olam) hills
From the old mountains to the hills that aren't going anywhere any time soon. Come on, the intent of the verse is obvious. This is a reference to how far into the future his blessings will extend, not how old these hills are. The only reference to age in this verse is qedem, not olam, which in this context is a reference to longetivity. These hills had a beginning, afterall.

So how old are the olam hills? Well if one wishes to limit the time to a mere 2000 years prior to the writing of these verses, then one would have to change his concept of how long God’s eternal past is.
Again, you have taken a great deal of liberty with the word "olam", applying a single definition to every context. I have already made it clear that it is not prudent to assume such a thing, given verses such as Genesis 6:4. If that isn't enough for you, consider the following:

(Jer 2:20) For of old (olam) time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Go broke the yoke of Israel and in response they said that they would not transgress... before Israel even existed? Clearly "olam" in this verse is not a millions/billions of years period of time at all. In fact, this appears to be a reference to their bondage in Egypt. We're talking less than 1,000 years here!!

(Jer 28:8) The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old (olam) prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.

Just how old are these prophets?

(Jer 5:15) Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient (olam) nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

... A nation of men that is older than man himself? Again "olam" being a reference to a relatively "short" (compared to billions of years) period of time.

All in all, a very weak case. "Olam" is far too flexible of a word to be used as proof or even a suggestion of a 4.5 billion-year-old earth.

IF and ONLY IF you assume that what God speaks must happen instantly. That is, you believe in instant pudding theology. I don't. God speaks many times about things that take lots of time to happen. If your instant pudding theology is correct, please tell me precisely what verse in Genesis 1 says something like:

God said, Let there be something INSTANTLY!.
...
You can't, and thus the entire YEC enterprise is a vast adding to the Bible of things which are NOT found in the Bible.

If your "slower than molasses" theology is correct, please tell me precisely what verse in Genesis 1 says something like:

God said, Let there be something EVENTUALLY!

See, I can play that game, too. You can't point that finger at me without it pointing right back at yourself. It's a fallacious argument at its very foundation, regardless of which side uses it.

Please tell me where the Bible says WHEN it was so? Was it so instantly, or was it so only from the writers viewpoint. Tell me how I can differentiate the truth here.
Well, you're not going to have much luck discerning the truth by basing your interpretation on the Talmud, or the writings of Clement, as you did in your article, that's for sure.

Unless you're dead-set on making the Bible conform to some preconceived notion, there's no reason to read Genesis 1 any other way than as if it were in chronological order. He spoke, something happened, one day. He spoke, something happened, two days, etc.
In your article, "Theory for Creationists", you suggest the following:

Genesis 1 occurs at the beginning of the universe. These are 6 proclamations God made in laying out the laws of the universe. They are proclamations only -- not actualizations. Nothing was completed on these days. Thus these can be events immediately at the beginning of the universe or just prior to the existance of the universe. The days are viewed as consecutive proclamations or "periods" of short duration. The proclamations were in temporal order; the fulfillment of those proclamations were NOT in the same temporal order.
A major flaw in this idea jumps out at me immediately. If the "days" were nothing more than periods of time where God issued a command that had yet to be realized, then how do you explain this:

(Gen 1:3-5) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Did you catch that? The evening and the morning were the first day. Every day in this chapter relies on there being an evening and morning. For there to be an evening and morning, there has to be a day and a night. For there to be a day and a night, there has to be light and darkness. That means the light was already there when the first day was over! He issued the command, the light was created, he divided that light from the darkness, and he then used that light and darkness to define the beginning and end of each subsequent day.

What did the bringing forth? Why, it wasn't God, it was WATER!!!!! Pay attention to the subject of the sentence. (oh why don't they teach good English in Schools anymore?)
*sigh*... Would you please take the time to actually read and understand my position before you feel the need to wheel out the insults next time? Note what I stated in my previous post:

It is interesting to note that God commands the waters to not only bring forth aquatic creatures, but birds as well.
Did I not say right here that the waters did the bringing forth? Yes, I did.

No it doesn't. All land life came out of the waters, both amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. We all came from the water--and by golly, the Bible was ahead of its time, (only if you don't swallow the clearly falsified YEC interpretation.
Strange, the Bible says that we came from dust. Then of course there's the question of why God felt the need to issue two commands to bring forth living creatures; one to the water (v20) and one to the earth (v24), if what you claim is true.

So, here you seem to imply that mankind can override rules laid down by God.
That is not what I meant to imply, no.

OK, so you believe in change only not so much change. Is this meant to be taken as meaning that you only believe in the change which YOU personally will allow and no more? Who made you the judge of how much change God allows, especially when you can't show me a verse which says:

Animals give rise to animals after their kind.

You didn't address this issue in your reply to me. Please tell me where this verse is, or have the honor to acknowledge that it doesn't exist. You know, lots of lurkers reading our exchange will know that it doesn't exist even if you don't acknowledge that it doesn't exist.
What, in those exact words? Why don't you show me where it says "animals give rise to other kinds of animals", then? Of course neither exists verbatim.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I could understand God creating everything instantly, or over a long period of time. (Not that I could actually understand how he did it, but it makes sense that he could.) Again, I could understand the earth producing all the different species, through natural processes, over billions of years. However I do not see how the earth could produce animal instantly. God could. The earth couldn't. It can't work miracles.

As Genesis says it was the earth that produced the different species, I don't see how it could have used anything other than natural processes and long periods of time. It's not God, it can't work instantly.
Well, if it were just the earth, I might be inclined to agree, but God's word was involved here. Note what it did to the fig tree in Matthew, for example. The effect was instantaneous. Although the record certainly declares that it was the earth that brought these things forth, it is also plainly evident that God in his power was directly involved in the process. Job 38-39 would be my primary example. Here's a portion:

(Job 39:13-17) Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich? Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear; Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

Does it sound like this was a design decision that God left to the earth to make? Natural selection, perhaps? There are numerous examples of specific decisions of design that are attributed directly to God's choice.

[Jugulum]

The fact that God or the writer didn't say 'and it was so INSTANTLY' is an indication that you can't be certain of your position. Please show me where instantly occurs in Genesis 1. You can't and thus you can't possibly be certain you are correct, unless you assume that you are an infallible intepretor of scripture.I'm seeing a parallel here, something that should help you understand (and try to respond to) the problems people have with your Days of Proclamation:

"The fact that the geological record doesn't contain specific evidence against a global flood is an indication that you can't be certain of your position. Please show me where 'there wasn't a global flood' occurs in the geological record. You can't and thus you can't possibly be cerain you are correct, unless you assume that you are an infallible interpretor of the geological record."

Part of your response to that line of reasoning would (I assume) be that a global flood is such a massive, catastrophic event that--if it had really happened--it would have left behind evidence, evidence that we don't find. So, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case. (This is on the principle that a glance through a room is enough to tell you there aren't any elephants there.) You would conclude that it is unreasonable to read a global flood into the geological data, that such a notion strains the data beyond where it can reasonably lead.1

Well, the perception on my side of the fence is that your reading of the text is similarly strained beyond where it can reasonably lead. There might not be anything in the text specifically contradicting your idea, but that doesn't mean it's remotely reasonable. In other words, you propose: "...There was evening and morning, a fourth day. God said, 'Let the sees teem with creatures', and it was so [a billion years later]. There was evening and morning, a fifth day. God said, 'Let the earth bring forth animals', and it was so [also a billion years later]. There was evening and mornin, a sixth day." Well, we see those brackets as an unreasonable strain of the text. We think that "a billion years later" is such a significant change in meaning that, if it were true, if it were intended, the text would have specific indications to that effect.

If you could convince us that this is a natural reading, you would have more success promoting Days of Proclamation.



1 I realize you would say more than this. For instance, you would argue that there are features throughout the geologic column that are incompatible with flood conditions.

[Jugulum]

Does it sound like this was a design decision that God left to the earth to make? Natural selection, perhaps? There are numerous examples of specific decisions of design that are attributed directly to God's choice.Not a good argument. It assumes that "X happened through natural law" and "X happened by God's intention" are contradictory, that God can't work through natural processes. A dubious notion.

Editted to add: If you want to argue this point, God and the Natural Methods (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65592&page=1) would be a good place.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Not a good argument. It assumes that "X happened through natural law" and "X happened by God's intention" are contradictory, that God can't work through natural processes. A dubious notion.
Well, no, not exactly... Certainly God can work through natural processes, but in this particular case, how does it sound? God deprived the ostrich of understanding by setting off a natural process billions of years ago before the ostrich existed? I don't see how that is terribly compatible with how the text is worded.

[Jugulum]

Well, no, not exactly... Certainly God can work through natural processes, but in this particular case, how does it sound? God deprived the ostrich of understanding by setting off a natural process billions of years ago before the ostrich existed? I don't see how that is terribly compatible with how the text is worded.I'm afraid I can't see any reason to think so. What is it about this passage that indicates anything about the manner in which God implemented the ostrich design? Where does the lack of compatibility arise?

[FlimFlamboyant]

I'm afraid I can't see any reason to think so.
I'm sorry; you can't see any reason to think what? I guess I'm not quite able to make the connection to the context here.

What is it about this passage that indicates anything about the manner in which God implemented the ostrich design?
Nothing, other than the implication that he was directly involved in some manner. What Glenn seems to be proposing is that he was not directly involved during the process, and that the outcome was merely the end result of what God had set in motion long before.

Where does the lack of compatibility arise?
I ask myself what Job must have thought the Lord meant by this, and wonder how his understanding could have been compatible with an evolutionary perspective. Granted, this isn't exactly concrete, but don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to read "God created this creature" and come away with "God commanded the earth to bring forth this creature's single-cell ancestor"? By itself, it's no big deal, but when combined with everything else I've seen in the scriptures regarding this issue, I can't help but wonder how a person can see evolution being promoted in the Bible.

[Jugulum]

I'm sorry; you can't see any reason to think what? I guess I'm not quite able to make the connection to the context here.I meant, I can't see any reason to think there's an incompatibility between the wording of the text and naturalistic processes.

What is it about this passage that indicates anything about the manner in which God implemented the ostrich design?
Nothing, other than the implication that he was directly involved in some manner. What Glenn seems to be proposing is that he was not directly involved during the process, and that the outcome was merely the end result of what God had set in motion long before.This is the notion I was disagreeing with when I said, "Not a good argument. It assumes that 'X happened through natural law' and 'X happened by God's intention' are contradictory, that God can't work through natural processes. A dubious notion."

It sounds like I should have worded it another way: You're assuming that "X happened through natural law" and "God was directly involved in X" are contradictory. I understand why people think that way, but it's still a Biblically dubious notion. The distinction certainly isn't taught in the Bible, and there's at least one pretty good indication to the contrary:

Look at Psalm 139:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13-14;&version=49;), "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb." This passage indicates that God was actively involved in forming the psalmist in the womb. Was the psalmist saying that God had to step in and do some special tinkering? I doubt it--I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that his growth in the womb was different from everyone else's. That's leaves us with two alternatives: God is (or can be) actively involved in things that happen according to natural law, or modern embryology is completely off-base, and fetuses do not grow simply by the action of DNA, hormones, etc., but require extra action from God. That's possible, but as I said, it's dubious. It's a long way to go to cling to an idea that isn't taught in the Bible.

In short, your perception that there's a contradiction is based on the uncertain assumption that there's an inherent separation between the direct actions of God and the working-out of natural law.

Remember, God designed, created, and sustains natural law. Heck, we don't even know that "natural law" is a meaningful term. Maybe the best way to understand "natural law" is "the way God normally works."

I ask myself what Job must have thought the Lord meant by this, and wonder how his understanding could have been compatible with an evolutionary perspective.I think Job thought that the Lord meant that He designed the ostrich, that He's responsible. As far as I can see, anything else is adding to the passage.

Granted, this isn't exactly concrete, but don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to read "God created this creature" and come away with "God commanded the earth to bring forth this creature's single-cell ancestor"?Worded that way, yes, my reaction is, "Those two don't look very much alike." But I could word it another way: Compare "God created this creature" with "God created this creature's ancestor instantaneously" and with "God created this creature using a long, natural process, a process He created and sustains." Both of the latter two fit equally well with the first, in my mind.

By itself, it's no big deal, but when combined with everything else I've seen in the scriptures regarding this issue, I can't help but wonder how a person can see evolution being promoted in the Bible.I agree that Glenn stretches the text when he says that the Bible teaches evolution. Even if it really were compatible with evolution, it's going too far to say that it teaches evolution. And I am YEC, based almost solely on Genesis 1-2. This ostrich passage, though, doesn't tell us anything either way.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Worded that way, yes, my reaction is, "Those two don't look very much alike." But I could word it another way: Compare "God created this creature" with "God created this creature's ancestor instantaneously" and with "God created this creature using a long, natural process, a process He created and sustains." Both of the latter two fit equally well with the first, in my mind.
Alright, I can see where you have a case there. It's not the sort of argument that is going to be effective in persuading someone who is predisposed to reading evolution in to such passages.

I should then just simplify my response to Assyrian:

(Mar 4:39) And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

A commandment to his creation, not much unlike the manner in which he addressed it at the beginning. The result was a swift response to his command; not what one would expect to occur naturally, yet prompted by nothing more than a word. It is therefore not inconceivable that God could command the earth to bring forth animals and have it immediately comply.

[grmorton]

Rather, there are a couple of ideas that I have already heard of and reject regarding Genesis 1. One of them is your "Days of Proclamation (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm)" theory. The problem is, there is absolutely nothing in the text itself that would prompt someone with no prior agenda to see God issuing all of his commands before the first day even began, as you propose in your article. Someone would have to be approaching it already convinced of evolution in order to feel the need to make it say that.

Actually there is, because St. Basil in the 4th century AD used the structure of the Scripture to turn Day 1 into a Day of proclamation, tying it into eternity past--try reading the Hexameron. Certainly Basil didn't have an agenda wrt evolution

William Whiston, Newton's contemporary, also held to a Days of proclamation view. So something in the text leads people there over the past several thousand years. Maybe it is this simple observation.

God said, "let there be light." God didn't say, "Let there be light and it was so." Someone other than God wrote the phrase, 'and it was so' and that makes it be so from the writers temporal point of view.


There are also plenty of instances where God spoke something and it happened instantly.

So, are you trying to turn God's occasional instant action into a law of theology? That if God speaks it MUST be instantly fulfilled? If that is so, then Jesus isn't the Messiah because he came far too late. God spoke of the Messiah in the Garden. I would contend that you can't be consistent if you demand an instant pudding theology.

So now what? "Well, I only said that it's possible that it didn't happen right away". Ok, but you can't use prophecy as concrete evidence to build your case. Besides, God's words in Genesis 1 are not stated as being prophetic, anyway. He is issuing commands, not prophecies.

I can't prove my case with this, but I most assuredly can show that Genesis does NOT require instant pudding with this. And if it doesn't REQUIRE instant pudding then it is not a mis-interpretation to allow for lots of time. And if that is the case, then it weakens the YEC case which claims it is the plain reading of scripture--which of course it isn't.


What's wrong with instant pudding? Coming up with cutsey phrases like "instant pudding" in a vain attempt to make my position look child-like is hardly evidence.

Jealous huh? What is wrong with instant pudding is that you all act as if it is a theological law that everything must be instant pudding, unless you don't want it to be then you allow God to speak of the Messiah in the Garden and not have an instant pudding messiah. You are simply picking and choosing where to have instant pudding.

BTW, I don't think it is a vain attempt. I think I have made quite a dent in your demand that everything was created instantly.

BTW, you still haven't shown me IN GENESIS 1 where the word instantly occurs. In Matthew 19 which you cite, the verse actually contains a synonym for instantly, but in Genesis it is lacking. Why are you adding words to the Genesis account which are not to be found there? Is adding words part of the 'plain reading of scripture'?


"After their kind" is the same as saying "millions of years of evolution"??? You must have some uncanny knack for reading between the lines that I don't have. "After their kind" is merely a statement of diversity, not progression.

The account doesn't say in Genesis 1 WHEN the earth brought forth. Please show me that word instantly. YOu keep avoiding that question. Where is instantly found in Genesis 1.


I never claimed that it did. You need to get the whole "He's a dirty, stinking, stupid YEC, therefore he believes this way" idea out of your head if we're going to make any progress here.

So if you believe that animals can give rise to animals not after their kind, then why do you object to evolution? If you don't want to be treated like a YEC, don't act like one.

My "instant pudding" interpretation of Genesis 1:11 tells me that they were both created on the same day separately.

Where does it say that they were created instantly?


No, it is not, because we're not talking about evolution in this instance, we're talking about origin. From my "instant pudding" perspective, God issued a command to bring forth a variety of creatures, and the earth complied; bringing forth a variety of creatures ("after their kind"), not a single-cell organism that eventually became a variety of creatures.

I think Assyrian did a good job on this argument. The earth doesn't do miracles. It works naturalistically. God performs miracles but God didn't bring forth the life, the earth did. Conclusion, life arose slowly but it arose at God's command.


Nah, we didn't miss a chance to predict anything:

(2Ti 4:3,4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Jest or not, it is not funny and you can't get off the hook by claiming a jest because this is a serious debate and you have just violated a real cardinal rule of debate--you are now attacking the individual rather than the idea. If you can't show the word instantly in genesis 1 and if you can't find a statement which says

Animals give rise to animals after their kind,

Then claim the guy is a heretic and then avoid responsibility by claiming it is 'in jest'. Good ad hominem, but it doesn't answer the question. Where does the Bible rule evolution and time out? Please show me. You simply are not addressing that question. Show me in the Bible (this is supposed to be a theology discussion.


Clearly in many contexts, it does. However:

(Gen 6:4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old (olam olam), men of renown.

So let me get this straight... These children were born to women, then became mighty men that were infinitely older than their own mothers? It is clear that you can't assume a single definition of this word and apply it to every context, as you have in this article. Not only that but, "olam olam" can be applied not only to the oldness of a thing, but the longetivity of a thing as well; something else that you failed to take into account in your article.

If that is an example of the kind of logic they teach in theology school these days, I feel sorry for graduates of those institutions. You, intentionally, leave out the very logical situation, that the mothers are even older. Why is it that your argument is reduced to such drivel as this? Are you so stuck on a young-earth that you must try such a silly weak argument as this:

The earth is very young
Therefore all mothers are very young
If their sons are old
Then the mothers must be younger than the sons.
since this is illogical glenn must be wrong.

Since I do not accept assumptions 1 and 2 above--the earth is neither young nor are its earliest mothers, your argument simply falls flat.

Now, lets get back to theology. Tell me why if olam olam applied to mankind only means 4000 years, why we can't similarly conclude that when the Bible says

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

it doesn't mean then that Blessed be the Lord from -4000 year to +4000 years?




I think those hills are going to be there a very long time, that's what.

So, you are inconsistent. If applied to the future, Olam olam means almost an eternity--certainly many millions of years, but if applied to the past, olam olam means no more than 6000 years? Why? What IN THE TEXT leads you to that conclusion? I suggest it is your bias against an old earth.


That word is also used to describe the mighty men who were born of women in Genesis 6; so what?. Context, man, context! It's an expression of how high, great, and long-lasting the blessings of Jacob are.

Fine, then equally you should acknowledge that from everlasting to everlasting might not be so long as you previously thought. Maybe God is telling us that he as a sell-by date, after 4000 or 6000 years, he is stale and no longer of use. That is what I would draw from your very inconsistent approach here--picking your meaning for the past and picking a different meaning of olam olam for the future. YEC is really nothing more than inconsistency.


From the old mountains to the hills that aren't going anywhere any time soon. Come on, the intent of the verse is obvious. This is a reference to how far into the future his blessings will extend, not how old these hills are. The only reference to age in this verse is qedem, not olam, which in this context is a reference to longetivity. These hills had a beginning, afterall.

This is precisely my point. If the hills are only 4000 years, then it is clear that God's blessings can only extend 4000 years into the future. That IS what you say above. You said, 'This is a reference to how far into the future his blessings will extend'. So, God does have a sell-by date and we are halfway there!


Again, you have taken a great deal of liberty with the word "olam", applying a single definition to every context.

And you have taken a great deal of liberty with logic.


(Jer 2:20) For of old (olam) time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Go broke the yoke of Israel and in response they said that they would not transgress... before Israel even existed? Clearly "olam" in this verse is not a millions/billions of years period of time at all. In fact, this appears to be a reference to their bondage in Egypt. We're talking less than 1,000 years here!!

This verse only has 1 olam, not two


(Jer 28:8) The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old (olam) prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.

Just how old are these prophets?

(Jer 5:15) Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient (olam) nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

... A nation of men that is older than man himself? Again "olam" being a reference to a relatively "short" (compared to billions of years) period of time.[/quote]

One olam again. Pay attention. Olam olam is translated as the eternal word, not just a single olam. A single olam means old, double means eternity or vast vast age.

All in all, a very weak case. "Olam" is far too flexible of a word to be used as proof or even a suggestion of a 4.5 billion-year-old earth.

And since you have not mastered my argument your use of a single olam to argue against my case is a meaningless waste of time.


If your "slower than molasses" theology is correct, please tell me precisely what verse in Genesis 1 says something like:


Not as catchy as instant pudding. Try again.

God said, Let there be something EVENTUALLY!


See, I can play that game, too. You can't point that finger at me without it pointing right back at yourself. It's a fallacious argument at its very foundation, regardless of which side uses it.

I don't argue that the word eventually is in Genesis. I argue that because the time is unspecified we are free to interpret it either way. What I find bad about your position is that you seem to think it rules my interpretation out. Given that I will freely grant that you could hold to an instant interpreation, and it would be a valid reading of the text, your demand for me to find 'eventually' misfires.

But in your case, you are saying that there is no possible way to interpret Genesis as allowing time. I say that is wrong. And when one is faced with 2 equal interpretations of the passage, one is then free to look at extrabiblical evidence to see which interpretation is correct and that is where geology comes in. Geology clearly shows an old earth. Astronomy clearly shows an old earth. Thus, I reject your interpretation. It is a valid reading but unless you can show me Instantly in Genesis 1, you can't claim that I am reading the passage erroneously.


Unless you're dead-set on making the Bible conform to some preconceived notion, there's no reason to read Genesis 1 any other way than as if it were in chronological order. He spoke, something happened, one day. He spoke, something happened, two days, etc.

I am dead set against turning the bible into a falsified document because we tie it to a falsified science.


In your article, "Theory for Creationists", you suggest the following:


A major flaw in this idea jumps out at me immediately. If the "days" were nothing more than periods of time where God issued a command that had yet to be realized, then how do you explain this:

(Gen 1:3-5) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Did you catch that? The evening and the morning were the first day. Every day in this chapter relies on there being an evening and morning. For there to be an evening and morning, there has to be a day and a night. For there to be a day and a night, there has to be light and darkness. That means the light was already there when the first day was over! He issued the command, the light was created, he divided that light from the darkness, and he then used that light and darkness to define the beginning and end of each subsequent day.

God can foresee, or do you deny God that ability? Genesis 1 is the planning for the universe, not the actualization of the universe. Thus, I don't see any force in your argument.


[/quote]*sigh*... Would you please take the time to actually read and understand my position before you feel the need to wheel out the insults next time? Note what I stated in my previous post:


Did I not say right here that the waters did the bringing forth? Yes, I did.[/quote]

I will stand corrected on that issue, but I was reacting to you claim that evolution didn't have birds comeing from the water. INdirectly it does because amphibians gave rise to reptiles who gave rise to mammals and birds.


Strange, the Bible says that we came from dust. Then of course there's the question of why God felt the need to issue two commands to bring forth living creatures; one to the water (v20) and one to the earth (v24), if what you claim is true.

So you are the person who gets to tell God what to do? Must be nice.


That is not what I meant to imply, no.

If you didn't mean to imply it , then why did you do it when you criticize God for issuing two commands, immediately above your denial that you do such things?


What, in those exact words? Why don't you show me where it says "animals give rise to other kinds of animals", then? Of course neither exists verbatim.

Thank you, finally, Now if animals are not commanded to give rise to animals after their kind, then evolution is a POSSIBILITY. It isn't a requirement of Scripture but one could then be free to read it that way.

I am going to DaGang China today and won't be back til tomorrow afternoon. I won't respond again until tomorrow night.

[grmorton]

I'm seeing a parallel here, something that should help you understand (and try to respond to) the problems people have with your Days of Proclamation:

"The fact that the geological record doesn't contain specific evidence against a global flood is an indication that you can't be certain of your position. Please show me where 'there wasn't a global flood' occurs in the geological record. You can't and thus you can't possibly be cerain you are correct, unless you assume that you are an infallible interpretor of the geological record."

Part of your response to that line of reasoning would (I assume) be that a global flood is such a massive, catastrophic event that--if it had really happened--it would have left behind evidence, evidence that we don't find. So, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case. (This is on the principle that a glance through a room is enough to tell you there aren't any elephants there.) You would conclude that it is unreasonable to read a global flood into the geological data, that such a notion strains the data beyond where it can reasonably lead.1

Well, the perception on my side of the fence is that your reading of the text is similarly strained beyond where it can reasonably lead. There might not be anything in the text specifically contradicting your idea, but that doesn't mean it's remotely reasonable. In other words, you propose: "...There was evening and morning, a fourth day. God said, 'Let the sees teem with creatures', and it was so [a billion years later].


I think the thing you are missing here (and this must be brief, I have to leave for DaGang right now), Genesis 1 is NOT the actualization of the universe. So when you say 'a billion years later' you are missing entirely the Days of Proclamation and turning it into a day-age view, which it isn't. All of Genesis 1 was PRE TEMPORAL, it was a writer trying to convey non-temporal events to us temporal beings. So, there was no 'billions' of years later. God designed/planned the universe pretemporally. The billions of years later is between genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Don't confuse this with Day-age. I am decidely against Day-age.



There was evening and morning, a fifth day. God said, 'Let the earth bring forth animals', and it was so [also a billion years later]. There was evening and mornin, a sixth day." Well, we see those brackets as an unreasonable strain of the text. We think that "a billion years later" is such a significant change in meaning that, if it were true, if it were intended, the text would have specific indications to that effect.

Maybe I didn't understand you above. the 'and it was so' is an editorial comment by the writer. HE is telling his readers, look around, it happened. it is done, but the writer, from his human standpoint can't tell the reader WHEN it happened. Sure, it coudl have happened instantly, but there is NO requirement for instant pudding.

If you could convince us that this is a natural reading, you would have more success promoting Days of Proclamation.

I probably won't convince many, I am content that to have someone say, like you did that, "There might not be anything in the text specifically contradicting your idea,'

I would really then let the scientific data carry the ball from there on.



1 I realize you would say more than this. For instance, you would argue that there are features throughout the geologic column that are incompatible with flood conditions.

Yea, but I find it odd that people don't think about that phrase, 'and it was so' Who wrote it who said it. It wasn't God, it was the human writer making his observation. That separates the saying, from the fulfilling by some unspecified time. Even if that time was a week. Look, the writer was not standing at God's side when light was created. There were no humans. Thus, when there was a writer, all he could do is look around and note that yes, there is light, and that is what the 'and it was so' phrase means. But fundamentally there is a separation in time between the creation of light and the writing of 'and it was so'. How much time? That is the question.

Bye bye, off to DaGang

[Assyrian]

I should then just simplify my response to Assyrian:

(Mar 4:39) And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

A commandment to his creation, not much unlike the manner in which he addressed it at the beginning. The result was a swift response to his command; not what one would expect to occur naturally, yet prompted by nothing more than a word. It is therefore not inconceivable that God could command the earth to bring forth animals and have it immediately comply.
Jesus cursed the fig tree and it died. He commanded the wind to 'be quite' and 'be muzzled' and it became quite. The fig tree and the wind are the passive recipients of the divine power. Your parallel would work better if God commanded the earth to be filled with living creatures. Instead God commanded it to produce them. God did not produce the living creatures directly himself the way Jesus withered the fig tree. No, we are told clearly that the earth produced them. We are told the trees made the fruit. If fruit is formed instantly it is not the tree making it. There is nothing in the passage that suggests the process was instant, except for the demands of your YEC timescale.

Blessings Assyrian

[FlimFlamboyant]

Actually there is, because St. Basil in the 4th century AD used the structure of the Scripture to turn Day 1 into a Day of proclamation, tying it into eternity past--try reading the Hexameron. Certainly Basil didn't have an agenda wrt evolution
So there is an indication in the Biblical record that this "Days of Proclamation" business is legit because St. Basil and others thought it was there? Nice. I stand corrected however in that one does not need an evolutionary agenda to feel the need to read it that way. It's sure convenient, though, huh?

So, are you trying to turn God's occasional instant action into a law of theology? That if God speaks it MUST be instantly fulfilled?
No, what I am doing is showing that you can't prove that God's commands in Genesis were not carried out immediately by showing SOME other passages where God's words were not fulfilled immediately. I did not suggest that they had to be carried out immediately just because God commanded it. Even I know better than that. My intent was to demonstrate that it is a perfectly valid possibility, however, and not an illegitimate understanding of Genesis 1.

The account doesn't say in Genesis 1 WHEN the earth brought forth. Please show me that word instantly. YOu keep avoiding that question. Where is instantly found in Genesis 1.
It is no more there than is the word "LATER", yet the "instantaneous" nature of the events on day 1 are plainly evident. I explained this in my previous post concerning day #1, though you didn't seem to understand it, given your response which didn't address the argument that I was making. I'll try again to explain my point later in this post.

So if you believe that animals can give rise to animals not after their kind, then why do you object to evolution?
I didn't say that they could give rise to animals "not after their kind". I believe there is room for some degree of change, but not room for a jump from one kind to another.

I think Assyrian did a good job on this argument. The earth doesn't do miracles. It works naturalistically. God performs miracles but God didn't bring forth the life, the earth did. Conclusion, life arose slowly but it arose at God's command.
And what chance does a dead planet have of bringing forth life without the word of God? He (not the earth) breathed the "breath of life" in to Adam's nostrils, afterall. I think God was a little more involved than what you would like to think.

Jest or not, it is not funny and you can't get off the hook by claiming a jest because this is a serious debate and you have just violated a real cardinal rule of debate--you are now attacking the individual rather than the idea.
Well, this "serious debate" is becoming a joke. My appologies for attempting to make light of the situation.

Then claim the guy is a heretic and then avoid responsibility by claiming it is 'in jest'. Good ad hominem, but it doesn't answer the question. Where does the Bible rule evolution and time out? Please show me. You simply are not addressing that question.
Your question is nothing more than a diversion from a fallacy that you put forth in the other thread. You said, "the Bible TEACHES evolution, in my opinion". So far you have not produced scriptures to that effect. Your claims thus far consist of nothing more than "the Bible doesn't teach AGAINST evolution", which is not the claim that you had previously made.

If that is an example of the kind of logic they teach in theology school these days, I feel sorry for graduates of those institutions. You, intentionally, leave out the very logical situation, that the mothers are even older.
Please read the verse again... Their children became (future tense) men of "old" (olam).

Now, lets get back to theology. Tell me why if olam olam applied to mankind only means 4000 years, why we can't similarly conclude that when the Bible says

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

it doesn't mean then that Blessed be the Lord from -4000 year to +4000 years?
Because "olam olam" is never applied to mankind (notice what I underlined in your statement).

I think those hills are going to be there a very long time, that's what.


So, you are inconsistent. If applied to the future, Olam olam means almost an eternity--certainly many millions of years, but if applied to the past, olam olam means no more than 6000 years? Why?
No, it is you who are inconsistent. You quoted Genesis 49:26 which contains only one "olam", and tried to draw a direct comparison to passages that use two. This is not a valid comparison.

That word is also used to describe the mighty men who were born of women in Genesis 6; so what?. Context, man, context! It's an expression of how high, great, and long-lasting the blessings of Jacob are.



Fine, then equally you should acknowledge that from everlasting to everlasting might not be so long as you previously thought.
Once again, "olam" (men of OLD) is not the same thing as "olam olam" (everlasting to everlasting). This is a fallacious comparison.

(Jer 2:20) For of old (olam) time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Go broke the yoke of Israel and in response they said that they would not transgress... before Israel even existed? Clearly "olam" in this verse is not a millions/billions of years period of time at all. In fact, this appears to be a reference to their bondage in Egypt. We're talking less than 1,000 years here!!

This verse only has 1 olam, not two
BINGO! Now you're getting it! However, my use of this verse is completely legitimate in response to your article, which uses Genesis 49:26 as a proof-text for an old earth. Both Jeremiah 2:20 and Genesis 49:26 contain only one olam (see below). If it represents a mere 1,000 years in Jer 2:20, then what makes you think that it can't also represent a "short" period of time in Gen 49:26?

ברכת אביך גברו על־ברכת הורי עד־תאות גבעת עולם תהיין לראשׁ יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחיו׃ (Gen 49:26)

And since you have not mastered my argument your use of a single olam to argue against my case is a meaningless waste of time.
Then your use of a single olam to argue FOR your case is an entirely equivalent waste of time. I'm glad you agree. You might want to update your article, assuming you can find an "olam olam" that actually refers to the earth this time.




I don't argue that the word eventually is in Genesis. I argue that because the time is unspecified we are free to interpret it either way.
Alright then, that's settled. So we both agree that the absence of "instantly" and "eventually" means diddly-squat to either of our causes since their absence cancels each other out. So that means we have to look elsewhere, yes? Yes.

What I find bad about your position is that you seem to think it rules my interpretation out. Given that I will freely grant that you could hold to an instant interpreation, and it would be a valid reading of the text, your demand for me to find 'eventually' misfires.
So then does your demand for me to find "instantly". Let's move on.

But in your case, you are saying that there is no possible way to interpret Genesis as allowing time.
I believe one must strain the text a great deal to allow for billions of years.

Did you catch that? The evening and the morning were the first day. Every day in this chapter relies on there being an evening and morning. For there to be an evening and morning, there has to be a day and a night. For there to be a day and a night, there has to be light and darkness. That means the light was already there when the first day was over! He issued the command, the light was created, he divided that light from the darkness, and he then used that light and darkness to define the beginning and end of each subsequent day.


God can foresee, or do you deny God that ability? Genesis 1 is the planning for the universe, not the actualization of the universe. Thus, I don't see any force in your argument.
"God can forsee"? I think you misunderstood my point. Let me try this again.

In your article, you claim that the 6 days were short periods of time that made up the "planning stage" of the creation; God issuing a command on each of those days. You then contend that these commands were then carried out over a long period of time. Here is my problem with this idea...

God issued these commands over a period of six "days", to which you seem to agree in your article "Theory for Creationists", so I'll assume that is not up for debate. For there to be a day, there must also be an evening and a morning. Why?:

(Gen 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Each day is deliniated by an evening and morning. Now, without day and night, there obviously can be no evening and morning, yes? What is then required for there to be a day and a night?

(Gen 1:4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

There had to be light and darkness. In other words, if there was no light, then there were no six days. That means that the following commandment:

(Gen 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

... Must have been carried out immediately, or else there would be no deliniator between each of these six days that God issued these commands. There would have been no days at all.

[FlimFlamboyant]

The fig tree and the wind are the passive recipients of the divine power.
How do you know that the earth wasn't also a passive recipient of divine power? We're talking about God's word here; that's powerful stuff.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I have been wanting to discuss this! So if I may...

Because "olam olam" is never applied to mankind (notice what I underlined in your statement).
But Psalm 106:48 is "from olam to olam", so the first "olam" looks to the past, and the second "olam" looks to the future. And there are verses that have "olam" in them that are pertinent to the topic, Jer. 2:20, as was mentioned, also Gen. 49:26 and Ps. 143:3.

But as FF said, it seems the time period indicated by "olam" can vary widely (re Ps. 90:2), so these references could probably fit quite well with a view that holds that these time spans are at most (say) 6000 years.

I believe one must strain the text a great deal to allow for billions of years.
Unless one thousand years is like a day to God? That would then be like millions of years. Or like a watch in the night (Ps. 90:4)? This would then be maybe hundreds of thousands of years, or if this can stretch even farther, six days.

In other words, if there was no light, then there were no six days. That means that the following commandment:

(Gen 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

... Must have been carried out immediately...
Yes, I agree, the fulfillment of the commands was interspersed with the commands themselves, it is difficult to see how they can be pulled out into different intervals (the "framework" view to the contrary) and oddly enough! Woodmorappe's idea of a white hole, with earth emerging while events farther out proceed at faster time speed, is a day-age theory, in essence. A thousand years were like a day, and this is good, acceptable YEC interpretation. So maybe there is not so much of a disagreement after all!

Blessings,
Lee

[FlimFlamboyant]

But Psalm 106:48 is "from olam to olam", so the first "olam" looks to the past, and the second "olam" looks to the future. And there are verses that have "olam" in them that are pertinent to the topic, Jer. 2:20, as was mentioned, also Gen. 49:26 and Ps. 143:3.
Yeah, I think the problem may be the thinking that "well, since olam to olam is eternity past to eternity future, then olam by itself must then mean one or the other, or at the very least, millions/billions of years in either direction." While this may make sense from a strictly logical standpoint, I don't think that definition is consistent with the word's use in many passages; Jer 2:20 being one of the more obvious examples. "olam" by itself does indeed appear to be intended to communicate a long period of time, but... relative to what? Apparently, not even 1,000 years is enough to qualify, as far as Jeremiah was concerned.

Olam, therefore, appears to be a reference to a "long" (at least hundreds of years) yet indefinite period of time (which must then be defined by context), while two olams together appear to strictly imply something that is eternal in nature.

[grmorton]

So there is an indication in the Biblical record that this "Days of Proclamation" business is legit because St. Basil and others thought it was there? Nice. I stand corrected however in that one does not need an evolutionary agenda to feel the need to read it that way. It's sure convenient, though, huh?


No, what I am doing is showing that you can't prove that God's commands in Genesis were not carried out immediately by showing SOME other passages where God's words were not fulfilled immediately. I did not suggest that they had to be carried out immediately just because God commanded it. Even I know better than that. My intent was to demonstrate that it is a perfectly valid possibility, however, and not an illegitimate understanding of Genesis 1.


It is no more there than is the word "LATER", yet the "instantaneous" nature of the events on day 1 are plainly evident. I explained this in my previous post concerning day #1, though you didn't seem to understand it, given your response which didn't address the argument that I was making. I'll try again to explain my point later in this post.

No, it isn’t ‘convenient’ that you don’t know much about the views of the Church Fathers and Jewish people. And no it isn’t ‘convenient’ that you ignore what is pulled from the Jewish Rabbi’s and early church fathers on my Days of Proclamation page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm

The Jews believed in a very deterministic world. God planned the entire world BEFORE CREATION. Notice, I repeat, BEFORE the actual creation. This Jewish belief is effectively a form of Days of Proclamation. Here is Rabbi

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/mhl/mhl05.htm[/url] ]"The Torah was to God, when he created the world, what the plan is to an architect when he erects a building.

Note that this means that the entire Torah was in existence prior to the creation. That is the Jewish view. Here is another swipe at that apple:
Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud. It says:


“R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created.” http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_88.html#PARTb
According to the Jewish view, The Torah was written before the creation of the world. That means,according to this view, that the days cited in the Torah were already written down before the actualization of creation, which means that the account of Genesis 1 as well as the rest of the torah was written down prior to what we think of as creation.

This tradition entered into the early Church. That is why we find statements like:

Augustine:

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).
Why would that be? Maybe because the days are really pre-temporal days.
Augustine continues:

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

In all of this, Augustine says the days in Genesis 1 are not the same as what we are used to. But of course, the YECs seem to know better than Augustine.

Origen believed that the days were not literal days but that the history recorded there was some sort of appearance—something which fits with Days of Proclamation.

Origen:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

And to go back to the Midrash, note the bolded part. God planned for the universe PRIOR to the actual creation. This is an old stream of thought in Judeo-Christianity and the YECs have forgotten this.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/mhl/mhl05.htm[/url] ]"The aleph, being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, demurred at her place being usurped by the letter beth, which is second to her, at the creation; the history of which commences with the latter, instead of with the former. She was, however, quite satisfied when told that, in the history of giving the Decalogue, she would be placed at the beginning, for the world has only been created on account of the Torah, which, indeed, existed anterior to creation; and had the Creator not foreseen that Israel would consent to receive and diffuse the Torah, creation would not have taken place." (Horne, 1917, p. 42)



I didn't say that they could give rise to animals "not after their kind". I believe there is room for some degree of change, but not room for a jump from one kind to another.

So, you just make this up and add it to the Bible? I thought this was a discussion of the Biblical issues and theology rather than a discussion of your bias’s.


And what chance does a dead planet have of bringing forth life without the word of God? He (not the earth) breathed the "breath of life" in to Adam's nostrils, afterall. I think God was a little more involved than what you would like to think.

A dead planet has the same chance as when Jesus said that if the crowds were not cheering him on Palm Sunday that the rocks would.


Your question is nothing more than a diversion from a fallacy that you put forth in the other thread. You said, "the Bible TEACHES evolution, in my opinion". So far you have not produced scriptures to that effect. Your claims thus far consist of nothing more than "the Bible doesn't teach AGAINST evolution", which is not the claim that you had previously made.

Yes I have, I have put forth the verses that the EARTH was the thing that brought forth the living beings. And even if you are correct, that the Bible doesn’t teach against evolution, it means that your claim that it does teach against evolution is flat out false. I win either way.



Because "olam olam" is never applied to mankind (notice what I underlined in your statement).

You are wrong again. Joshua 24:2

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time[olam olam], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”

I assume that if they lived in olam olam time, that this applies to mankind. But, remember, mankind isn’t everlasting and I have never said he was. So when claim that because only one olam is used of man means that this doesn’t indicate an old earth, you are wrong. But, mankind did live olam olam ago.


Once again, "olam" (men of OLD) is not the same thing as "olam olam" (everlasting to everlasting). This is a fallacious comparison.

Since one olam refers to the past and one to the future, it gives us an idea of what a single olam means, and it means more than 2000 years, I would claim. Otherwise God is god from 2000 years ago til 2000 years in the future.


Then your use of a single olam to argue FOR your case is an entirely equivalent waste of time. I'm glad you agree. You might want to update your article, assuming you can find an "olam olam" that actually refers to the earth this time.

No it is not a waste of time. One olam refers to the past eternity and one to the future. The word means a really long time, not merely 2000 years.





Alright then, that's settled. So we both agree that the absence of "instantly" and "eventually" means diddly-squat to either of our causes since their absence cancels each other out. So that means we have to look elsewhere, yes? Yes.

One must look then to science, not to one’s bias’s against an old earth and against evolution. Your approach, by avoiding science in this regard is like the scholastics who reputedly tried to figure out how many teeth a horse had. They cited all sorts of verses of scripture, but when a boy suggested that they open a horse’s mouth and count the teeth, both sides of the argument threw the kid into the street!


So then does your demand for me to find "instantly". Let's move on.

We will only move on so long as you acknowledge that the Bible does not REQUIRE an instant pudding interpretation. If you don’t acknowledge that, then we won’t move on.


I believe one must strain the text a great deal to allow for billions of years.

Not if Genesis 1 is as the Jewish rabbi’s believed, a transcription of the planning for the universe which existed PRIOR to creation and thus its events have nothing to do with the order in which things were produced when God actually DID create the universe. BTW, this also is stated directly by the jewish rabbi’s.

This is from a 12th century Rabbi citing a 1st century Rabbi

""The difficulty which Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] had which led him to the above interpretation is, as he said: For if Scripture intended to teach the order in which the acts of creation took place, it should have written barishona , since wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture it is in the construct state.""


"God can forsee"? I think you misunderstood my point. Let me try this again.

In your article, you claim that the 6 days were [i]short periods of time that made up the "planning stage" of the creation;

Wrong, they are pretemporal events. Time was created with the universe. Almost all the early church fathers agree with this, as does modern science. But, humans can’t communicate about pretemporal events because we are tied to time, thus the need for talking about days, something which humans can kind of understand but this is also the reason Augustine didn’t believe the days in Genesis 1 were the same kind of days as we experience.

God issuing a command on each of those days. You then contend that these commands were then carried out over a long period of time. Here is my problem with this idea...

God issued these commands over a period of six "days", to which you seem to agree in your article "Theory for Creationists", so I'll assume that is not up for debate. For there to be a day, there must also be an evening and a morning. Why?:

(Gen 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Each day is deliniated by an evening and morning. Now, without day and night, there obviously can be no evening and morning, yes? What is then required for there to be a day and a night?

(Gen 1:4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

There had to be light and darkness. In other words, if there was no light, then there were no six days. That means that the following commandment:

(Gen 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

... Must have been carried out immediately, or else there would be no deliniator between each of these six days that God issued these commands. There would have been no days at all.

This assumes that there is no way that the same thing could have been going on in the pretemporal planning for the universe. When I have submitted patents, I envision all sorts of things which are not yet created. I even give names to things, but they are names to things which don’t exist.—yet. That is the nature of creation, at least the creation of ideas. Right now I envision several new oil fields, but, they don’t exist now. I actually have names for them. Creativity means first thinking of the idea in advance (whatever ‘in advance’ means for the Deity). And therein lies the problem with interpreting Genesis. God didn’t just think this up on the spur of the moment. The universe is too complex and too organized. Thus the concept of light being in the pretemporal world doesn’t bother me at all. Who knows, maybe god had a model universe! This is not so strange as it may sound because if we are made in God's image and we like that sort of thing, why not him?

[FlimFlamboyant]

No, it isn't convenient that you don't know much about the views of the Church Fathers and Jewish people. And no it isn't convenient that you ignore what is pulled from the Jewish Rabbi's and early church fathers on my Days of Proclamation page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm

What do I care about what the Jewish Rabbi's and so-called early church "fathers" have to say when I have a Bible right here?

The Jews believed in a very deterministic world. God planned the entire world BEFORE CREATION.
The Jews also believed that their Messiah was an impostor; big deal. Now do you have some scripture to go with that?

God planned the entire world BEFORE CREATION. Notice, I repeat, BEFORE the actual creation.
Simply repeating your claim ad nauseum doesn't prove anything. Please bring forth scripture that proves this.

This Jewish belief is effectively a form of Days of Proclamation. Here is Rabbi
...
Note that this means that the entire Torah was in existence prior to the creation. That is the Jewish view.
Ok, now is that the BIBLICAL view? You're wasting your time. You got on my case later in your post, reminding me that this is a biblical discussion, and not about my personal bias. I am now returning the favor. I am not interested in the personal bias of Rabbis or early church "fathers". I will not respond to their baseless claims in future posts unless you can dig up something where they actually produce scripture to make their case.

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).
I'm sorry, where do I find the book of "ibid" in my Bible again?

In all of this, Augustine says the days in Genesis 1 are not the same as what we are used to. But of course, the YECs seem to know better than Augustine.
Do you actually have an independant thought in your head that is relevant to this? I'm not debating this with Augustine, Origen, or any of those guys; they're dead. It's just you, me, and the words of God's chosen apostles and prophets here. Last time I checked, that didn't include Augustine, Origen, or any of the Rabbis you've quoted. Their opinions are noted, but moot.

I thought this was a discussion of the Biblical issues and theology rather than a discussion of your bias's.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Besides, the title of the thread is "BIBLICAL evidence for OEC/evolution", so I don't see how any of the words of the men you quoted earlier are relevant, beings that they don't reference a single scripture in their arguments.

A dead planet has the same chance as when Jesus said that if the crowds were not cheering him on Palm Sunday that the rocks would.
Please read my question again... I asked what chance does a dead planet have of bringing forth life without the word of God... Unless you are prepared to suggest that those rocks could have become children of God without the direct application of his power?

Yes I have, I have put forth the verses that the EARTH was the thing that brought forth the living beings...
You put forth verses that show that the earth brought forth living things, to which I agree. What you have not put forth are verses that prove that the different "kinds" evolved in a series of stages from a single cell (or whatever it is that you contend) over billions of years.

... And even if you are correct, that the Bible doesn't teach against evolution, it means that your claim that it does teach against evolution is flat out false. I win either way.
That is not what I said; I was summarizing the argument that you are making, which does not reflect the claim that you made in the other thread. Look, I know you work 12-14 hour days and are probably horribly jet-lagged at the moment, and I respect that. But please take a little more time and make sure you're actually understanding what I'm saying before you respond. I'm not going to do some childish victory dance because you haven't responded in a while. I would much rather have a delayed response than one that argues against a point that I didn't make.

You are wrong again. Joshua 24:2

"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time[olam olam], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods."?
No, it is you who are mistaken yet again. There is only one olam in that verse, just like Jeremiah 2:20. Have a look:

ויאמר יהושׁע אל־כל־העם כה־אמר יהוה אלהי ישׂראל בעבר הנהר ישׁבו אבותיכם מעולם תרח אבי אברהם ואבי נחור ויעבדו אלהים אחרים׃ (Jos 24:2)

Please point to me where the other olam is in that verse. Are you by chance using Strong's numbers to find these? I am afraid that the way the words are listed in there is very misleading at times. This is one of those times. Before you post another verse of this nature, please double-check it with the Hebrew text and make sure that there really are two of them there. Glenn, the bottom line is, you built a bogus case on bad information. There is only one olam in Genesis 49:26. You claimed that this shows that the hills in that verse are very, very old. I showed you Jeremiah 2:20, which also has only one olam, clearly referring to a period of time that is less than 1,000 years. If you're going to persuade me, you're going to have to show me why this discrepancy does not pose a serious problem for your position. That means dealing with at least these two verses in particular.

Since one olam refers to the past and one to the future, it gives us an idea of what a single olam means, and it means more than 2000 years, I would claim.
Whether or not you claim it really isn't the issue. I know that what you claim makes "sense"; really, I honestly understand why it is that you came to that conclusion. However, the Biblical context makes it very evident that this is the wrong conclusion, whether it makes sense to us or not. A single olam is merely a reference to an indefinite period of time. To then claim that it has to be at least "millions of years" without context to support it doesn't hold water.

No it is not a waste of time. One olam refers to the past eternity
It wasn't referring to eternity past in Jeremiah 2:20. Besides, now you're confusing me about where you stand. You say that "olam" refers to eternity past; are you then claiming that the creation is infinitely old? You're all over the map here, and I'm having difficulty finding any degree of consistency in your argument.

Not if Genesis 1 is as the Jewish rabbi's believed, a transcription of the planning for the universe which existed PRIOR to creation and thus its events have nothing to do with the order in which things were produced when God actually DID create the universe. BTW, this also is stated directly by the jewish rabbi's.
Who died and made Christ-rejecting Jewish Rabbis the ultimate authority on the scriptures?

In your article, you claim that the 6 days were short periods of time that made up the "planning stage" of the creation;
Wrong, they are pretemporal events.
:doh: So now you're going to argue with yourself?? I didn't make this stuff up, Glenn, you said it! This is a direct quote from your article:

... Thus these can be events immediately at the beginning of the universe or just prior to the existance of the universe. The days are viewed as consecutive proclamations or "periods" of short duration. The proclamations were in temporal order;

So which is it? Were they of short duration, in temporal order, or were they pre-temporal events, as you now claim? If you wish to take issue with what you previously wrote (understandable, beings that it was 9 years ago) then that's fine. But please pick something and stick with it. It'll make this a whole lot easier for both of us.

Time was created with the universe.
Now that I don't really have an issue with. Of course, I would contend that this happened on the first day. :smile:

This assumes that there is no way that the same thing could have been going on in the pretemporal planning for the universe.
Glenn! Glenn! You're still not following me. What is it that separated each day that these commands were issued? If all of those commands were pre-temporal, why are 6 days mentioned at all? There would have been no days. There would have been no point of reference.

(Exo 20:10,11) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

What does the sabbath represent if there weren't 7 congruent periods of time, deliniated by something tangible?

And therein lies the problem with interpreting Genesis. God didn't just think this up on the spur of the moment. The universe is too complex and too organized.
Who ever claimed that he wasn't making plans before he issued the first command? Just how much time does an all-powerful God need to plan, anyway? Did he have to go to the zoning office, or something?

Thus the concept of light being in the pretemporal world doesn't bother me at all.
So he made light in the pre-temporal world, then got rid of it, and let the "big bang" (or what have you) create it again it for him when he was done with the planning phase?? Seriously, where on earth are you getting this stuff? This has taken a turn in to the surreal.

[grmorton]

What do I care about what the Jewish Rabbi's and so-called early church "fathers" have to say when I have a Bible right here?

Obviously you don't care about it. Obviously, from the comment you make above, you have set yourself up as the SUPREMO, INFALLIBLE BIBLE INTERPRETOR (SIBI). And since you are the SIBI, and no one else's opinion is better than that of the SIBI, clearly you wouldn't have any interest in the views of lesser mortals like St. Augustine, Origin, etc who don't hold a candle to the SIBI. Clearly the SIBI knows more about the Hebrew language than the ancient Rabbi's from 2000 years ago. Clearly the SIBI may be the most important and knowledgeable person in the whole universe.

Lest you think I jest, the arrogance displayed by your first sentence shows me that you are not really interested in discussing things, and thus I waste my time with the all-knowing SIBI. your opening sentence is one of utter arrogance and self-inflated value. Do you really think you are better than the likes of St. Augustine? Wow what delusions of grandeur.

Ok, now is that the BIBLICAL view? You're wasting your time. You got on my case later in your post, reminding me that this is a biblical discussion, and not about my personal bias. I am now returning the favor. I am not interested in the personal bias of Rabbis or early church "fathers". I will not respond to their baseless claims in future posts unless you can dig up something where they actually produce scripture to make their case.

In case you don't understand exegesis, one of the reasons that all seminaries teach the views of the early church fathers, and yes, even the views of the ancient rabbis is to use that as a ground for understanding the original meaning of the text--as close as we can get to that. But of cou