A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

That probably depends on what subject we're talking about. If it's about, for example, Christ's temptation by Lucifer, that's probably not something that a timeline is important for. But if we're talking about actual scientific or historic claims in the bible, then I believe timeline becomes a lot more important because now we're talking about events that have a chance to be verified. It goes towards credibility. If the bible isn't getting scientific information correct, or historic events, I think that calls into question the entire premise that the book is based on. God is assigned supernatural and far reaching powers, and when the bible speaks of scientific events, or God's involvement in historic events, whether things played out the way the bible says is very important. If the bible is unable to pass the truth test for verifiable claims, why should it be given any credence for the ones that cannot be?

 

No, I don't believe that because I don't believe in God, my friend.

But, anyways, there are many passages that I could name.

John 14:6, let's start with that one.

 

As I've said many times before, I question the "truth" claims of science.

 

Of course I know you don't believe it, I was simply asking if thats what you believe scripture says. So for the sake of discussion, lets acknowledge that you think scripture is full of crap, and that you're just stating claims that you believe the bible makes, which, i think is fair, right?

So why should we come to the father? Why would you come to someone you don't recognize? But are you saying that we go to eternal punishment because we don't go through the father?

 

'The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion'.

Nothing to do with God.

Even when I was a practising Christian I believed that God had given us the brains to use, and the ability to use them.

Having studied the Bible with its myths, creation stories etc.it became obvious that it was not what it was claimed to be - Divinely inspired. In fact it contains errors which, if it was divinely inspired, should have been edited and corrected before 'publication'

 

so you believe that we have the "freedom of the will" to act without the constraint or necessity?

 

Don't Christians have the "freedom of will" to interpret the Bible as they want?

 

No. But that is the ideal, and within the necessary constraints of 'social and community' living we have the ability to use our freedom.

The doctrine of Freewill is dependent on the myth of Adam and Eve. As is Original Sin, though this was not proposed until the 2nd century CE.

 

They do, but many are constrained by their teaching and lack of 'ability' or 'desire' to think things through.

 

Of course scripture does not give you even a vague idea of some evolutionary process. The Scriptures of the Bible were written millennia before us humans had the slightest idea of evolution. You won’t find any hint on the law of universal gravitation either. That doesn’t mean apples did not fall from trees in Biblical times or that Newtons ideas on gravity are wrong. From a Christian perspective it just means that God decided to inspire Biblical scripture in order to tell us about our spiritual salvation, not in order to hand us a book on biology and physics.

As for when human consciousness developed, no idea, at some stage in the evolution of homo sapiens. IMHO not because of chance, but because God willed it to happen. That is what Genesis tells us, not when and how He then let it happen.

 

Very fair, yes.

Huh? Could you attempt to clarify these just a bit?

I'm saying that John 16 is claiming that we can only get to God through Jesus Christ. If you dismiss Jesus, as I do, I see no other pathway to God.

 

The status of dark energy has been sentenced by NASA (read the link I gave you right above): a MYSTERY. Period.

What you mean when you quit the discussion is that you can't answer simple questions. If the Big Bang happened, then the only and sole way to prove it is by showing the universal epicenter of such a fabulous event, and also show the direction of its expansion. Any other coincidence or try is unaceptable, because leads to nothing but speculations.

So, show me. As you say you talk science and are very literate in this field, well, you are compromissed to show and tell.

Naaahhh, the theory of evolution was and still is lunacies.

Before Darwin, the word "evolution" in the theory was in accord with its meaning: developing from simpler, worst and inferior status to more complex, better and superior status.

For this reason it was called the theory of "evolution". Example, this is a dialogue between Cuvier and Geoffroy at Jardin de Plantes, Paris, France.

Cuvier -"You really don't understand? Each epoch has its own animals and plants. They arise with it and perish with it. Catastrophes obliterate. Nature creates anew, in accordance with those four plans that are clearly recognizable in all periods."

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire: "Well, how did it happens then, that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized, including Man, came last?" There were not four plans of creation, but only a single general plan, in accordance with which animate beings has gradually evolved from lower to higher forms throughout successive floods and geological periods."

Ha, ha ha... THAT is the theory of evolution, do you understand now? With that ideology such theory came into existence. And the fool of Darwin was exactly in the same opinion. Read Origin of the Species, Recapitulation and Conclusion:

"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification: it can act only by very short and slow steps".

Ha... what a bump!... only favourable variations... lol...

See? they were at the same level of IGNORANCE. The same ignorance observed today with modern evolutionists. Sudden modifications happen all the time, and are even inherited by offsprings.



See? the atrophied hands of this woman passed as well to her children from one generation to another, no slight, successive FAVOURABLE variations... such natural selection is a myth... sudden variations happened in the past as well, look the T Rex, also shows the same BIRTH DEFECT and was passed to the offsprings as well...

Look, come back with REAL evidence, keep your illusory infrared background radiation to yourself or teach about it to the lunatics in mental institutions, they will support you, they will ask you for more storytelling... here, come back and show the epicenter of the famous Big Bang, I want to see it, I demand true evidence... not so coincidences or bubbling...

About "evolution"... lol, I can imagine that you yourself never knew how this deluded idea came to be, and how evolutionists didn't upgrade their lunacies but practically changed the whole idea into a new one, but they were sure to keep the word "evolution" alive, so they won't appear as losers in front of the biblical narration. By the way, the biblical narration shows the opposite path, that species got corrupt, this is to say, the bible is in 100% agreement with the observation of life on earth, the entire species are in a process of degeneration, nothing can be put against this fact: DEGENERATION.

 

sure......and most do. But, that doesn't make my or their interpretation any more or less accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

If our will isn't free then is it "bound" by something?

 

OK, so when scripture says that He created things in the water, and then things in the air that fly, and then livestock and "creeping" things, shouldn't H have at least said, "He created the things in the water that became the things on the land"? Why have seperate creations, since there seemingly was one creation, that everything evolved out of?

 

I'm saying if you don't "recognize" the Son, why do you want to go to the Father (God)? Are you attempting to get to the Father( God)?

 

Me personally? No, because I don't believe that what your Bible says is true. But what about Jews? Muslims? Hindus? They are trying to get to God, and according to Scripture they can't.

 

I know you think scripture is full of crap, I though we'd been through that. We're discussing it as though this is what you believe it says.

So Jews, Muslims, and Hindus want to come to the Father (God) of scripture?

 

You could not have said something more meaningless if you had read the Chinese phonebook backwards.

I do not thank you for wasting my 1.2 seconds.

 

Um... Buddy...

Don't know how you missed that. I'm done discussing physics as I have very little knowledge of it and would likely just run into false information. Go ask a physicist to explain dark energy to you.

I'm sorry, why should I care? The modern theory of evolution is all that matters. At this point, it doesn't matter if you skewer the views of people from an age where evolution had not yet been written. The modern evolutionary synthesis has about as much to do with the discussions of Cuvier and Saint-Hilaire as relativity has to do with Newton's theorems. These people lived before Darwin published his theory and had ideas that were pretty much without backing and wrong, for the most part. Also, the Online Etymological Dictionary points out that the term was used quite differently back then.

Except that this is completely wrong, as modern evolutionary biologists are well aware of genetic mutations causing hereditary diseases. I'm kind of left wondering who told you otherwise. Also, no modern biologist would ever state that evolution favors the strong, or the fast, or the complex; but rather that it favors those who are well-adapted to their environment.

...Are you seriously going to assert that the small arms of the T-Rex were a genetic defect that somehow went on to propagate itself through the entire species? Because that's not usually what happens. In fact, there's been significant discussion about how those arms came about.

No, they really didn't. You can take out-of-context quotes all you want, but the fact is that the theory of evolution has had a slow, gradual evolution with a few pronounced changes since the days of Darwin. Was Darwin right about everything? No - he missed that you also need geographic isolation for speciation to occur, and that often, such events are quite rapid (on a geologic time scale), followed by a long time of nothing major happening - the theory of punctuated equilibrium. However, he got most of the major points very right - descent with modification, natural selection, survival of the fittest. What's more, Darwin used the word once, and preferred descent with modification, as evolution had already been used as a scientific term in embryology. Never mind that it was, etymologically, almost exactly what the theory described already.

So yeah. The name was kept because that was, essentially, what the theory described - the evolution of life on earth from common ancestors. What you're basically saying is that because the word which meant exactly what the theory described was being used by people unfamiliar with the theory before the theory made its way into the public conscience, this is evidence of a conspiracy to ensure that they don't "look bad in front of the bible". You do realize that evolution

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume that the theory of evolution had its roots in the discussions of French biologists (who died before theory of evolution via natural selection was ever written). What would that imply? Why would that have any impact on the value of the theory today? What could that possibly tell us about the modern theory of evolution? And why are you so hesitant to talk about what is seen as scientific fact today, and rather decide to focus on the long-since abandoned ancient version? It's like if you were in a discussion about the pros and cons of various operating systems, and your big argument about windows being bad was based on the fact that you can't run any games on Windows ME. Seriously, why focus your energy there?

Okay, you've piqued my interest. Please, by all means, tell me how species are "degenerating".

 

I don't need to ask a physicist about dark energy, because the total releases by scientific journals reveal that such an idea is no more than garbage to the square.

The etymology of the word "evolution" is not in question, but its application by the different fields throughout the ages.

Besides, you want to discuss the "genesis" of the bible, but try to ignore the "genesis" of the theory of evolution.

Oh come on, show some maturity here

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=maturity&searchmode=none

 

See? No wonder why evollutionists can't evolve.

Who cares about how well they were adapted to their former environment, the new environment is what rules. A well adapted fish in a valley will get extincted in a long drough season, while a bad adapted vulture will survive in that new environment.

Natural selection is the way Darwin used to replace God by an imaginary goddess. The problem with Darwin is that his hatred against God after the death of his daughter was a "natural reaction", I have no idea what incites atheists and evolutionists to come here and attack the bible in a forum that is suppose to be about
"Religion & Philosophy Separation of church & state, etc." Lol...

Aha! So... when is about the T-Rex, then the atrophied arms and losing of digits is "a response to millions of years of evolutionary pressure"...

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/a/Why-Did-T-Rex-Have-Such-Tiny-Arms.htm

When discussing the arms of T. Rex, it's important to understand that the word "vestigial" is in the eyes of the beholder. A truly vestigial structure is one that served a purpose on some point of an animal's family tree, but was gradually reduced in size and functionality in response to millions of years of evolutionary pressure.


but when atrophied arms and losing of digits happen in humans it is called BIRTH DEFECT...




What a bunch of clowns are these evolutionists!

Genesis against Genesis.

You want to discuss the genesis of the bible using your theory of evolution... you are welcomed.

But you must handle a discussion of the genesis of the theory of evolution and I will use the bible to discuss it.

This calls for a fair game.

First, I should like you to be familiar with the word "degenerate, degeneration."

Definition of degeneration (n)

Bing Dictionary
de·gen·er·a·tion
[ di jènnə ráysh'n ]

1)- worsening of condition: the process of becoming physically, morally, or mentally worse
2)- deterioration: a disease process that causes a gradual deterioration in the structure of a body part with a consequent loss of the ability to function
3)- loss of function: the gradual loss of the biological function, specialization, or adaptation of a part of the body over many generations


Oh, look! that is exactly what happened to the T-Rex and the woman and children of the picture!

 

That would be the “freedom of conscience” that you are talking about. Catholics have not quite gotten around to it yet, they still have the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” that keeps them in line. In retrospect some Protestants may kind of envy them for that, but here you go Protestant “freedom of conscience” entails having to put up with people interpreting the Bible differently to you, even if you think that some of these interpretations are downright whacko.

You should not confuse what Scripture says with what people say it says. Some Christians think that Scripture says Jews, Muslims, Hindus can’t get to God. Where I come from most Christians think that Scripture says they can. Verses like Luke 3:6 quoting Isaiah spring to mind:
“And all people will see God’s salvation.”
I trust that includes you, too.

 

Genesis may have said that had it first been addressed to post 19th century guys such as you and me. However it first was addressed to an ancient people living thousands of years ago that did not have the slightest idea that creatures could evolve out of other creatures. So let me remind you again of Calvin’s principle of “Divine Accomodation”:

http://www.theopedia.com/Divine_accommodation

We know now that God’s "loftiness" is much higher than the people at the time Genesis was written could possibly have imagined. Their outlook at the world didn’t reach any further than the sky, we have found out that there’s a massive universe beyond that. The sequence in which God created in Genesis is merely a literary device whose symbolism and numerology its then audience would have understood far better than we do today. The text I originally linked you to explains some of that symbolism and points you to the truth Genesis holds for both the ancient Israelites and us today:
“Genesis 1 tells us nothing factual about the age or size of the universe, about the physical processes by which either the earth or life on earth developed, or about the order in which different forms of life emerged on our planet. Instead, it affirms the sovereignty of God, the goodness of creation, and the dignity of humanity. These theological truths are timeless and normative for us, but the ancient cosmology that serves as their vehicle is not.” (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/religion/faculty/harlow/Creation according to Genesis.pdf)

 

Do you think the writers of scripture were ever asked to write something by God, that they may not understand at the time?

 

Why is this relevant? Why is it relevant what the word meant in different fields, or what people referred to before the theory ever had strong scientific backing? Why does that have any relevance to the validity or the content of the theory today?

Not sure which genesis you mean by the bible. The origins of the bible are important because the authority of the bible comes primarily from the idea that the people who wrote it were inspired by god. So if anything in the bible is demonstrated to be wrong, then we have a problem, because clearly an omniscient, omnipotent god couldn't just "get it wrong", and an omnibenevolent god couldn't lie to us. The authority of evolution is, like with every scientific theory, utterly divorced from its origins and the scientists who came up with it - the validity of the theory is entirely dependent on the evidence we have to support it. It doesn't even remotely matter what Darwin said (although he did get a lot of things right). It really doesn't matter what people were saying before evolution via natural selection even existed as a scientific theory.

Yes, which is why rapid changes in environment can make things very hard for some species to adapt, and why the meteor impact was so bad for the dinosaurs. I don't see how this makes evolution look bad, though, as this is pretty straightforward within the theory.

Even if it was, even if this insane conjecture was backed up by anything, I wouldn't care, because the truth value of evolution is not determined by Darwin's motives. Get off the subject, it's not helping you.

First of all, T-Rex arms are 3 feet long and estimated to be able to bench press about 400 pounds. That's not "atrophied". That's not "useless". That's not "defective". Secondly, the entire family Tyrannosauroidea has three fingers - that's not a birth defect. And lastly, I don't know enough about Tyrannosaurus ancestry to conclusively answer all your questions about it (I recommend you talk to an expert in paleontology if you want to be sure), but it is safe to say that it was not a genetic defect, but rather simple natural selection, as severe defects such as the one listed below tend to have a very negative selection pressure, and an animal that size simply didn't need big, clunky arms at all - the arms they had served various known purposes.

You know, just because you're exceedingly hesitant to do any actual research doesn't make those who do clowns.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I'm discussing the genesis of the bible using the available evidence. What, do you think I'm appealing to the theory of evolution as one big argument from authority? No! I'm actually pointing to individual pieces of observable evidence which clearly go against what the bible says. Discussing the origins of evolution is a fool's errand, because science doesn't work the way the bible does - a theory stands or falls entirely on the merit of what evidence supports it, not its history. There is no fair game present, because you completely fail to understand how science works.

From your subjective point of view, you mean? Okay, a few problems here.
1. You seem to be asserting that all species are degenerating, which would call for more than a handful of examples.
2. You completely ignore examples of gains in biological function
3. Your two example are absolutely terrible - a localized genetic defect which is to be expect in one in every so many cases anyways which is no sign of the general deterioration of the species, and completely misinterpreting the evidence as for why the T-Rex had arms that were "only" larger than the average human's arms and "only" several times as strong - including missing the fact that apparently, there's very little need for larger arms, as nothing in the entire superfamily had larger.