No ‘he’ wasn’t. We’re lords of a few million cubic light years, glorified.
I don’t think it is quite like that…there is a difference between a previously undiscovered animal and new evolutionary species.
The point of Adam naming ALL the animals in Genesis is that all animals we see today came from those God created on day 6 and which Adam named.
Obviously Adam didn’t name pugs or Dalmatians…these are breeds which are descendants of what God created on day 6.
I personally think that the explanation for this is best illustrated by the Ark Encounter when accounting for how many animals were able to fit into the ark and yet remain consistent with the very obvious scientific observations of animals species that have existed since the flood.
I mean unless you look at the fossil record and see all the species that are no longer here .
How many kinds of animals were on the ark? How many species was there? Also…. Breeds are different from species. Pugs and labs are both breeds of dogs as you mentioned. But they are a different species from wolves… then wolves they came from are different species also from other wolves…. And wolves are different from foxes…. Are foxes and wolves from the same ancestor on the ark or they from separate species on the ark?
And then you have penguins and polar bears.
2 Likes
The penguins would likely win the “who has traveled furthest” award at the open session of the ark welcoming dinner.
2 Likes
I think that question has been more than adequately answered…(How Could All the Animals Fit on the Ark? | Answers in Genesis)
| Extinct Groups | Kinds (est.) | Per Kind | Total Animals (est.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amphibians | 54 | 2 | 108 |
| Reptiles | 219 | Flying: 24 x 14 = 336 | |
| Flightless: 195 x 2 = 390 | 726 | ||
| Non-Mammalian Synapsids | 78 | 2 | 156 |
| Mammals | 332 | Clean/Flying: 15 x 14 = 210 | |
| Unclean: 317 x 2 = 634 | 844 | ||
| Birds | 89 | Flying: 69 x 14 = 966 | |
| Flightless: 20 x 2 = 40 | 1,006 | ||
| Living Groups | Kinds (est.) | Per Kind | Total Animals (est.) |
| Amphibians | 194 | 2 | 388 |
| Reptiles | 101 | 2 | 202 |
| Mammals | 136 | Clean/Flying: 31 x 14 = 434 | |
| Unclean: 105 x 2 = 210 | 644 | ||
| Birds | 195 | Flying: 190 x 14 = 2,660 | |
| Flightless: 5 x 2 = 10 | 2,670 | ||
| Total | 1,398 | 6,744 |
The ark was plenty big enough to accommodate that number with food and water supplies for the year long event as depicted in Genesis 6-8. Irrespective of whether or not one wishes to believe it, the Ark Encounter has more than put this matter to rest.
Whilst not directly relevant to the time inside the ark itself, one should remember the waters, in the depiction of Genesis 6-8, only covered the entire earth for 5 months…the other 7 months the highest parts of the earth were exposed.
My observation is therefore, that in the last few months of the flood event, significant areas of the earth were not covered by water.
I agree that half a year would not have been enough time for any large tree growth, however, its more than long enough for small vegetation to get underway. I think that if one is to consider the entire story of how this planet and the universe came into existence, God performed a series of miracles clearly, then that would have also needed to be repeated after the flood (ie a miraculous rapid regrowth of vegetation during the last few months of the flood).
I do not think that one has to, or should attempt to, base their view of the Genesis depiction of either creation or the flood from a scientific angle. However, I do accept that our inquisitive natures as humans, and our wish to make logical sense of our existence causes us to critically study these things. My only concern for this forum is that it uses what is termed science to make sense of philosophical dilemmas…and there is a big flaw with that method. How can philosophy be studied scientifically when it is the philosophical that drives the need for self actualisation in the first place? (ie science is the result of the philosophical…not the other way round!) The problem is that first one aligns oneself philosophically, then one uses that influence to make sense of what surrounds oneself. Hence my regular claim that this forum is focusing far too much on secular science (because mainstream scientific interpretation is a result of an atheistic world view that the majority of scientists use as their founding principle when developing modern theories). It is foolish to make the claim as a Christian that mainstream modern science intepretation/theory is in complete harmony with Christian views…it is not.
The most obvious example of this is found in the refusal of TEists to accept that physical death, weeds and tars, pain and suffering…all these things entered this world because of, and through, sin! It is my view that they do this because to do otherwise casts significant doubts on what is left of their theology. As an Adventist, this is exactly why our church is so fundamental and literal in its biblical interpretations especially when it comes to the Sabbath and the Sanctuary. These are core doctrines of the Bible that when discarded, cause all sorts of theological problems…in particular, this topic of creation and the flood and science. Strange, as it may seem unrelated, I think that the rise of organisations such as AIG have proven to me that the SDA very literal view of the biblical writings regarding the sabbath is the right one (even though AIG are not SDA).
Our saviour (Jesus Christ) died a very painful and physical death to redeem us from the consequences of that “first” sin. It was a result of the very first sin from one man (and women) that all are condemned to death…none of us are immune from the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin…the simple reason is that all of their offspring “are” tarnished as a result of what it did to them. We are all less than perfect…all of their offspring became filthy rags from the moment sin entered not only their minds, also their lives.
I would argue almost every story in the Bible regarding death as a result of sin, uses physical outcomes to illustrate the finality and seriousness of it. The OT and even the NT have many stories of death from specific acts of sin. Some were instantaneous (Ananias and Saphira), others decades later (king Saul). There is no specific reason why death as a consequence of sin must always be instantaneous. Even in my own existence, many people I know have died as a direct consequence of bad choices…some lung cancer from smoking, another crash a paraglider into a cliff then fell to his death before my eyes, another relative died instantly in a car crash, an old lady got run over by a semi-trailer in front of me at a pedestrian crossing…some of the above were instant, others over time.
The Bible is absolutely clear on the point of death through sin…it is a consistent theme from the book of Genesis right through to the book of Revelation…not once does the Bible waver from the theme that the wages of sin “is” death. We do not die because it is an evolutionary process…that is a secular scientific view because of a non belief in a God…we die because we are cut off from our creator. That must be the Christian philosophical driving force behind any Christian science interpretation.
Christians can all argue till the cows come home about what type of death that is…it bluntly obvious that we die a very physical death after, on average, about 3 score and 10 years! So clearly the first part of the meaning of death is a physical one…my main concern is that the second part, the spiritual death also extensively described in the Bible, is not also the pot I am found in at the second coming of Jesus!
In support of at least one aspect of TEism regarding the origin of death and its outcome, I accept that there are many spiritual stories in the bible, indeed even many stories with dual meanings and applications (the earthly vs heavenly sanctuary being one of them), and that we absolutely do suffer spiritual death when we do not choose to follow the gospel. However, this does not detract from the certainty of the physical meanings also very evident in these Bible writings.
I guess what I am saying is that we have two aspects to our reality that help us determine whether or not to take the creation account as literal or an allegory…the philosophical and the physical. Science is only concerned with the physical. It can not be used to explain the philosophical…and that is because it is the philosophy that generated the study of science in the first place. If ones philosophical approach is driven by atheism, and the mainstream science developed from that approach, then the science a Christian uses must avoid the mainstream scientific method. That is why I:
- follow organisations like Answers in Genesis…
- align myself with individuals like Stephen Myer, Michael Behhe, Steve Austin, Dell Hacket…
- study textual experts such as James White, Michael Brown, Dan Wallace
- am willing to listen and learn from agnostic atheists such as Bart Erhman
Its a real shame that the gospel is lost when one discounts the literal writings beginning Genesis 1:1. I have no doubt that the OT patriarchs and early NT Christians (including apostles who received direct instruction from our God) were under no illusions as to the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. For anyone here to make the claim any apostle who inferred or stated belief in the literal account of Genesis is wrong…that person is denying the very foundations of Christian belief…they are not Christian.
So I skimmed it because it’s clearly bullcrap.
So again, how many animals were in the ark? Where did they come up with that number? They need to list all of them. But let’s make it simple.
Let’s just stick with mammals. There is roughly 6,500 known species of mammals. Do you know how many of those mammals are/were carnivores?
There are close to 300 mammal carnivores alive today.
But let’s just make it simply.
Let’s look at the Felidae family. There is something like 70-80 species in this family , extinct and extant .
Were all 70 to 80 species on the ark? We’re lions and tigers there are did they adapt afterwards like breeds?
1 Like
Onto a second note…
See we are not disagreeing with Bible.
We are not disagreeing with Yahweh.
We are not disagreeing with Christianity.
We are are not disagreeing with Jesus.
We are not disagreeing with the apostles.
I am disagreeing with your terrible biblical hermeneutics, literary skills and pseudoscience. Disagreeing with you is not the same as disagreeing with God.
Instead of aligning ourselves with 0.01% of the Scientific world, those few thousand out of almost eight million who agree with evolution.
5 Likes
So sorry you feel that way. It appears your faith is based on a particular interpretation of Genesis. I’ll just leave it there.
There is exactly your problem…if you are not capable of genuinely studying both sides of the debate…your answer would be the same no matter what evidence is presented.
Unfortunately one the the striking things I note about atheists for example, they don’t want religion taught in schools for fear of brainwashing.
Your response is indicative of that type of consideration. You are not interested in a proper study of the dilemma that TE’s face.
Theologically, TEism has huge problems (and they really are insurmountable)
Scientifically, TEism faces such overwhelming criticism from within the scientific community, they are isolated by both sides of the scientific community.
God tells us in the Bible that there is no safe haven as “luke warm”. He says those who are luke warm are against Him. He categorically rejects them.
Trying to blend secular humanistic driven science theories with Christianity is only achievable by compromising self evident and very important Bible doctrine.
For any individual contemplating TEism, the alarm bells should start sounding the second a TEist starts making the claim death did not enter this world because of and through sin. To make the claim it’s spiritual death alone ignores literally hundreds of biblical examples of physical death as a consequence of sin (Ananias and Saphira come to mind as two great examples…there are plenty of others)
So I don’t have a problem studying both sides. I already studied your side. I studied it and believed it for many years. I’ve been having this same discussion with different faces and names for over a decade. I’ve heard your side of the story hundreds of times. Literally. I’ve discussed this face to face with people well over 300 times at churches, hiking, bookstores, standing in line at grocery stores, outside of gas stations and ect… the overwhelming majority of atheists and agnostics I’ve met who left the faith left it because of the belief systems you have. I’ve walked through it with them. For the last month, 30 minutes a day, five days a week at work, and often 20+ minutes after work, I’ve had this discussion with 2 guys who I work with.
So yeah, I don’t have to reread the same stuff by hundreds of people. I already know y’all’s argument and that’s why I don’t believe it. That’s why I left that view in the dust when I was still fairly young.
3 Likes
For example. Read the threads. Look up my name and keywords from your quoted statement. You’ll see I’ve had this same discussion several times on here alone. I made a whole post on it somewhere. I think Jim Stump coauthored a book that was marketed here on four views about death entering the world. It’s not new. It’s not shocking. It’s not some complex issue.
A few things to consider.
Only Yahweh is immortal. Spirits are not. Angels are not. Souls are not. Humans are not. Demons are not. Just God. God alone is immortal.
1 Timothy 6:16
New American Standard Bible
16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion!
If sin is what let death in, then why lie about it being Adam. Before Adam sinned Eve sinned. Before Eve sinned the serpent sinned.
If Adam was immortal, then why was there a tree of life in the garden? What do immortals need with a fruit that makes you immortal that you would only need if you needed to sustain your immortal life because you sinned and was dying, but if you sinned you would be cast away from the tree. It just makes no sense. Makes way more since if Adam was not immortal and within the story he feed on the fruit to be kept alive. Then was curt of from it.
Contextual analysis of genesis 3 indicates it’s part of the general 1-11 mythology and it a historical or autobiographical text.
1 Like
That’s pretty funny, considering how many of us here used to be YECs and discarded YECism after examining both sides of the debate… without wearing YEC literalistic blinders and escaping the echo chamber.
2 Likes
I don’t know what you mean by believing in the literal account of Genesis because it has 50 chapters. Jesus came to tell us God was the father instead of just a God of Israel and he was calling us to repentance in view of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. I don’t see how the Genesis account would have been central to these concerns. This story is important in this forum because it concerns science and faith.
Although you declare yourself an atheist, I agree with you on the notion of death. But, when you call Genesis 3 mythology, that is not true. The problem is that those who explain it to you believe the story to the letter. Man has a body that grows and after reaching maturity, it must disappear, that is to say, experience physical death. Therefore, physical death is not the consequence of sin, because even animals that have not sinned and trees that are also biological beings, die. Biblically, death means “separation from God” (Jn 5:24). So the death spoken of in Genesis is a spiritual death. As for physical death, it is a consequence of the physical life cycle and is natural. It has nothing to do with the sins of Adam and Eve.
I’m not an atheist.
1 Like
Ok, verry good
To tell the truth, as the universe began with a singularity, the life also on all the universe has an origin: the Earth. It is from the earth that life can reach the whole universe. Hence the Bible verse 'Dominate the earth (universe). So, there have never been lives elsewhere and any life that we will discover elsewhere, after studies, we will notice that its origin is the Earth.
We do not know that. I personally suspect it is true because of the unique timing and placing of our planet in the cosmos and even within the Milky Way, but it will not affect my faith if it is not. And the universe is so vast, we will likely never know.
1 Like
The days are 24 hour days. It’s not about periods of time. It’s a story about a god creating the cosmos and world in a week. However, that’s not the whole picture. The main spot we need to start is genre.
Take Frankenstein. It’s a story about a monster created from the parts men. In the story it’s really a corpse made of corpses and it’s been reanimated. ( also the current American Horror Story touches up on this subject and some of the subtext believed to exist in the story of Frankenstein’s monster ). Anyways, even though in the story it’s real corpses and a real mad scientist and so on, it’s fiction. It’s not historical.
Or take this. “ I’m so hungry I could eat a horse “. The horse is a real horse, and the hunter is about real hunger. But it’s not meant to be taken literally.
So the first question we should ask about genesis chapters 1 is what’s the writing style? Is it historical? Is it symbolic? Is it mythological? So just because in the story it’s about 7 actual days, does not mean the story itself is literal. Have you ever considered it’s not literal?
1 Like