If Evolution

[2003cobra]

it would not bother me if God had created by an an evolutionary process. However He tells us He spoke creation into existence and did so over the course of six days.

Not exactly.
The first creation story says He told the earth to bring forth plants and animals.

The second creation story differs. It has God physically planting the garden and forming man Himself. And man was formed first in the second creation story, then God planted the garden, then He formed the animals after noting that man was alone and that his being alone was not good, finally God did surgery Himself to make woman. A very different story from the first creation story!

The Gospel... and the Hebrew context both demand a young creation where death entered our world after sin. (Death to all 'nepesh' creatures).

No, the two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation demand that we not consider these literal history.

 

[2003cobra]

Jesus quotes fromGen. 1 And 2 referring to it as the one creation account. It is mostly modern-day evolutionist trying to add time into God's words that imagine there are two separate accounts. Genesis 2 compliments the first chapter and is not contradictory in any way.

Your view requires an intentional denial of what the text actually says. That leaves us little common ground for discussion.

It is strange that evolutionists are so eager attempting to destroy the foundation of the gospel and every Christian doctrine which is found in the first few chapters of Genesis.

It is strange that someone claiming to be a Christian would think the gospel is built on something other than the resurrection and testimony of Jesus Christ.

By the way Genesis 1 provides the chronology of the six days of the creation event. Genesis 2 is mostly providing details of how the creation applies to humanity. The two chapters are consistent and complement each other.

Again, a denial of the text of the second creation story.

Man was formed first, before plants and animals, in the second creation story.

 

[Stripe]

No, I think the view that these are literal history is wrong.

The Bible says "six days."

It is irreconcilable with evolution.

 

[Jonahdog]

The Bible says "six days."

It is irreconcilable with evolution.

Correct.Your Book is wrong.

 

[6days]

No, the two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation demand that we not consider these literal history.

Jesus referred to Genesis 1and 2 as the creation, and as one account, so I will stick with Him. Chapter 2 is consistent with Chapter 1. Jewish Scholars and most Christians since the early fathers have always found the creation account easy to understand without contradiction.

It is strange that someone claiming to be a Christian would think the gospel is built on something other than the resurrection and testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why did Jesus go to the cross? Last Adam went to the cross as our Mediator, to defeat physical death which is a result of first Adam's sin. Genesis is foundational to the Gospel and is the basis of every Christian doctrine. The physical death and resurrection of Jesus becomes meaningless without the literal history of the OT.

 

[2003cobra]

The Bible says "six days."

It is irreconcilable with evolution.

The first creation story as literal history is irreconcilable with the second creation story as literal history.

The first creation story says 6 days.

The second creation story says one day.

And neither says these stories must be read as literal history.

Remember how David was rescued by God from the hands of Saul?

We have the history stories, with help from Jonathan, escaping to the Philistines, all wonderful, believable history. And then we have the figurative telling, recorded twice in the Bible! The non-literal view is found in the Psalms and in 2 Samuel 22:

7 “In my distress I called to the LORD; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears. 8 The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. 9 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. 10 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. 11 He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness his canopy around him— the dark rain clouds of the sky. 13 Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth. 14 The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded. 15 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy, with great bolts of lightning he routed them. 16 The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils. 17 “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters. 18 He rescued me from my powerful enemy, from my foes, who were too strong for me.


Did God really fly down on a cherubim with smoke pouring from his nostrils shooting arrows?

No, some figurative Hebrew poetry is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[2003cobra]

Correct.Your Book is wrong.

No, his interpretation is wrong. And his demand that the stories are literal history is wrong. And his pretending the two stories are compatible as literal history is wrong.

 

[2003cobra]

Jesus referred to Genesis 1and 2 as the creation, and as one account, so I will stick with Him.

I stick with Him too.
You are also sticking with your denial of the text and incorrectly claiming that Jesus said these two creation stories must be taken literally. That didn’t happen.

Chapter 2 is consistent with Chapter 1. Jewish Scholars and most Christians since the early fathers have always found the creation account easy to understand without contradiction.

Two false statements.
But if you are going to deny what the text actually says says, there is little common ground for discussion.

Why did Jesus go to the cross? Last Adam went to the cross as our Mediator, to defeat physical death which is a result of first Adam's sin. Genesis is foundational to the Gospel and is the basis of every Christian doctrine. The physical death and resurrection of Jesus becomes meaningless without the literal history of the OT.

Which literal history?
The first creation story literally says plants came forth on Day 3 and man on Day 6.
The second creation story says man was formed before the plants.

No, you are making claims that are not true and are inconsistent with the scriptures.

But since you deny what the Bible actually says, and it appears you accept the first creation story as literal history and then deny the second creation story, there is little common ground for discussion.

 

[Stripe]

The first creation story as literal history is irreconcilable with the second creation story as literal history.

The first creation story says 6 days.

The second creation story says one day.

And neither says these stories must be read as literal history.

Remember how David was rescued by God from the hands of Saul?

We have the history stories, with help from Jonathan, escaping to the Philistines, all wonderful, believable history. And then we have the figurative telling, recorded twice in the Bible! The non-literal view is found in the Psalms and in 2 Samuel 22:

7 “In my distress I called to the LORD; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears. 8 The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. 9 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. 10 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. 11 He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness his canopy around him— the dark rain clouds of the sky. 13 Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth. 14 The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded. 15 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy, with great bolts of lightning he routed them. 16 The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils. 17 “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters. 18 He rescued me from my powerful enemy, from my foes, who were too strong for me.


Did God really fly down on a cherubim with smoke pouring from his nostrils shooting arrows?

No, some figurative Hebrew poetry is not meant to be taken literally.

So you also deny the historicity of the accounts of King David?

 

[2003cobra]

So you also deny the historicity of the accounts of Kind David?

I don’t believe we should take 2 Samuel 22 as a historical record.

Do you think David was saved from Saul by God flying down on a cherubim throwing lightning bolts while smoke poured from his nostrils?

With David, we have the historical accounts of his success in his conflict with Saul and we have the poetic or figurative retelling (in 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18).

With creation, we only have the two figurative retellings. So we don’t know what really happened, other than knowing that God is the creator just as we know God protected David from Saul.

We do have the benefit of two figurative stories of creation, with different orders and methods of creation. So we know, if we believe both the first two chapters of Genesis, that these cannot be viewed as literal history.

So, Stripe, do you believe 2 Samuel 22 is an accurate, historical version of how David was protected from Saul?

If not, why can it be viewed as figurative but the two different creation stories must be viewed literally?

 

[Stripe]

With creation, we only have the two figurative retellings.

Because you say so?

And there are not only two tellings.

And the two main ones don't read at all figurative.

And even if they were figurative, how does that show "six days" is wrong?

So we don’t know what really happened, other than knowing that God is the creator just as we know God protected David from Saul.

In both cases, we know far more.

Why can it be viewed as figurative but the two different creation stories must be viewed literally?

Why can't they be? :idunno:

 

[2003cobra]

Because you say so?

And there are not only two tellings.

And the two main ones don't read at all figurative.

And even if they were figurative, how does that show "six days" is wrong?

In both cases, we know far more.


Why can't they be? :idunno:

Are you asking me to explain again why we can’t declare both:
1) The first creation story is literal history
And
2) The second creation story is literal history?

I think I have explained that several times.

Confirm that is your question and I will go the extra mile and explain it again.

 

[Stripe]

Are you asking me to explain again why we can’t declare both:
1) The first creation story is literal history
And
2) The second creation story is literal history?

You think their chronologies are incompatible.

I don't think they are incompatible.

There's a more constructive thing you could attempt rather than retelling your position: Explain what "six days" means if it cannot mean what it plainly says.

What do any of the intricate details of the creation account mean if they cannot mean what they plainly say?

 

[6days]

You are also sticking with your denial of the text and incorrectly claiming that Jesus said these two creation stories must be taken literally. That didn’t happen.

Jesus said “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” In that one sentence Jesus combines Gen. 1:27b and Gen. 2:24. Jesus refers to it as real history and obviously does not consider them two separate and contradictory accounts.


Also interesting is that Jesus asks if you don't believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Him (Jesus)?


Paul explained the Gospel in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15. The Cross becomes meaningless if first Adam was not a real person, and the one who we inherited our sin nature from.

Why did Jesus go to the cross? Last Adam went to the cross as our Mediator, to defeat physical death which is a result of first Adam's sin. Genesis is foundational to the Gospel and is the basis of every Christian doctrine. The physical death and resurrection of Jesus becomes meaningless without the literal history of the OT.

Which literal history?

it would seem you have no answer as to why Jesus went to the cross. What was the purpose of his physical death?

The first creation story literally says plants came forth on Day 3 and man on Day 6.
The second creation story says man was formed before the plants.

Genesis 1 is the chronological order. Yes plants were created on day three and humans were created on day 6.


Genesis chapter 2 is telling us more about the history of man and it is not a chronological order of creation. Genesis 2 tells us that certain plants had not yet sprouted when Adam was created. Notice the words for plants in Gen. 2 describe different different plants / different words than in Genesis 1. It seems the plants that did not exist when Adam was created, was plants that required tilling... and the second word is likely describing thorny plants.

No, you are making claims that are not true and are inconsistent with the scriptures.

Because you say so?

But since you deny what the Bible actually says...

For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.

and it appears you accept the first creation story as literal history and then deny the second creation story

God's Word contains one creation account which is consistent with all other scripture... ( and supported by science)

 

[2003cobra]

You think their chronologies are incompatible.

I don't think they are incompatible.

The first creation story says man was created after the earth brought forth plants.
The second creation story story says man was formed before any plants were growing.

So, if you see those as compatible, we don’t have a basis for discussion.

There's a more constructive thing you could attempt rather than retelling your position: Explain what "six days" means if it cannot mean what it plainly says.

What is the special meaning to two words in a story?

It is just part of the story.

What do any of the intricate details of the creation account mean if they cannot mean what they plainly say?

The fact that the intricate details of the first creation story have man created after plants and the intricate details of the second creation story have man formed before any plants are growing have a very clear meaning:
These stories are not literal history!

 

[2003cobra]

Jesus said “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” In that one sentence Jesus combines Gen. 1:27b and Gen. 2:24. Jesus refers to it as real history and obviously does not consider them two separate and contradictory accounts.

Jesus was giving a teaching on divorce, not ancient history.

Jesus did not call it “real history,” why do you feel a need to misstate the situation?

Also interesting is that Jesus asks if you don't believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Him (Jesus)?

You seem to have confused the term “believe” with “believe it is literal history.”

This is an error on your part.

Paul explained the Gospel in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15. The Cross becomes meaningless if first Adam was not a real person, and the one who we inherited our sin nature from.

Nothing makes the cross meaningless.

However, the two creation stories differing in order and method of creation does make them not literal history.

it would seem you have no answer as to why Jesus went to the cross. What was the purpose of his physical death?

It would seem that you want to distract from the fact that one creation story says man was created after the plants and the other says man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up. So you have no answer for this difference, other than denying what the Bible actually says.

Genesis 1 is the chronological order. Yes plants were created on day three and humans were created on day 6.

Yes, that is the order in the first creation story.

Genesis chapter 2 is telling us more about the history of man and it is not a chronological order of creation.

That is an outright denial of the text.

If you deny what the text says, we have no basis for discussion.

 

[Stripe]

If you see those as compatible, we don’t have a basis for discussion.

OK, bye. : wave2:

 

[2003cobra]

OK, bye. : wave2:

Bye

 

[6days]

What was the purpose of His (Jesus) physical death?

It would seem that you want to distract from (Genesis discussion).

Genesis is foundational to the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm asking again... what was the purpose of the cross? In other words why did Jesus need to suffer physical death?

OR..... if Cobra does not want to answer, I welcome answers from others

 

[6days]

So you also deny the historicity of the accounts of King David?

I wonder if he has trouble reading any history book, or news article where the author uses figures of speech? I wonder how He judges God's Word determining what to believe? I wonder if the virgin birth is just figurative language?