Yet it does not say how he created them, other than saying “Let the earth bring forth…”
you are distracting. True, he did not say how, but its clear it was not just one common ancestor.
Thank you. Expound on why you consider it “clear it was not just one common ancestor.” The interpretation I accept does not address the issue one way or the other, as the scripture is not about that. I even think the verse stating “Let the earth bring forth…” has nothing to do with science or method of production, though sometimes we who accept evolution throw it out incorrectly as support of evolution. I threw it out just to highlight the ambiguity of the passage as relates to method of creation.
2 Likes
I don’t know. I am still not convinced that he was an historical person. Could he have been a literary subject like Adam was?
Historians may dispute whether Jesus said or did this or that, but no recent, reasonable, mainstream historian disputes that Jesus existed. To point out just one problem, if you remove Jesus the man from history, there is no reasonable explanation for the rise of the church that bears his name. And that is minor compared to the independent attestation to Jesus. Asserting that Jesus was not a historical person is the skeptic’s equivalent to a Christian arguing that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Both claims must ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary …
1 Like
5 posts were split to a new topic: Is the Atonement on the Cross in conflict with 21st-century morality?
The bible is a collection of writings by an ancient people. Any truth that you get out of those writings is up to you.
Post deleted
Speaking of dodging, Otangelo, why did the Designer make peptidyl transferase a ribozyme?
2 Likes
Since you admit the Bible does not say how God created how can you deny common ancestry? Common ancestry answers the how question but not the why question.
Both Jesus and I say that Genesis was true. Are we lying?
I answered many of your questions but you’ve yet to answer mine. This one is still pending:
2 Likes
R_speir, I think your post is a very useful one because you’ve explained an excellent example of how someone can embrace “six literal days” within an old earth view. You probably already know this, but readers may find it helpful to know that the view you are describing is often called The Days of Proclamation view of creation. Because God is outside of time (because time is an attribute of the matter-energy universe he created), the author wanted us to understand God’s “vantage point” outside of creation where he issued commands as separate creative acts but sure to be fulfilled within creation at the appropriate times throughout the timeline of the universe. Thus, when God issued the command that the waters would bring forth creatures, every timeline event related to the origins of various kinds of aquatic life became a sure thing. You could even say that God “authorized” the creation of each and every aquatic creature species but that that creative commandment was fulfilled throughout the timeline as appropriate. (Yes, evolutionary processes could be at work for many generations leading up to each of those species.) Likewise, when God created the beasts of the field, birds of the air, and everything which creepeth upon the earth, all of those creative events along the timeline became inevitable realities no matter where and when those events would occur.
Does my description of the Days of Proclamation fit what you are saying?
Notice that the Days of Proclamation don’t even have to be issued in a particular chronological order, because that culture was not bound by such chronological notions. Indeed, as a boss of a building project, I could issue orders as a general contractor to all of my subcontractors in any sequence I wish and give each a calendar date when they begin and end their work—because the subcontractors know from experience where the various elements come into play and how to integrate their labor into the building process of all of the trades. (Thus, I might issue the contract for the wiring of the building long before the foundation is poured. Everybody knows that the wiring comes later, but that doesn’t stop me from authorizing the work and telling them what to do and when.)
Frankly, that is also how I view evolutionary processes “harmonizing” with Genesis 1. I am NOT saying that the author had evolution in mind when he wrote the words. (In fact, my personal view is that Genesis 1 is a HYMNIC TRIBUTE to the creator. I believe that the six stanza tribute with repeating chorus had existed in oral form for many generations and the author(s) of Genesis decided to incorporate it into the history of the beginnings of the Children of Israel as a suitable preface. The many poetic elements of Genesis 1 have been well described in countless papers, books, and dissertations so I won’t try to repeat the many genre elements here.) The author simply focused on God’s creative commands, not the eventual fulfillment of those events God willed.
Perhaps God in his providence used this Hymnic Tribute to help the ancient audience see how Israel’s God YHWH could be fit into an already existing view of creation. The various domains of creation and their eventual occupants (e.g., the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, the beasts of the field) all have their respective gods and goddess among Israel’s neighboring religions. But in Israel, YHWH is worshiped as the creator and master of all such domains. So the order of that presentation is based on an appropriate organization of those domains—not on a chronology of sequential order. We expect a chronological ordering but the ancient Hebrews did not. And as I already described, God could have issued the creative commands in any order he wished and they would “fall into place” along the eventual timeline just as God willed it to take place.
Of course, that can also explain why God “moved over the face of the waters” even before the “Let there be light!” command was issued. Chronology just doesn’t matter. These are commands being expressed in the timeless mind of God, not a chronological sequence of eventual fulfillment of commands. The outline is ordered for other purposes, not a chronological unfolding.
As you can see, billions of years of history can be expressed in Genesis 1 by means of that Days of Proclamation view.
1 Like
Common ancestry is evidently not what is described in Genesis.
r speir,
what are the main points you struggle with, with the literal YEC interpretation ?
Oh oh oh … I know the answer to this one!
No, the Bible does not lie. But the Bible does use figurative terminology. When Jesus says he is a Vine … he doesn’t mean he is really a Vine!
2 Likes
Are you familiar with the texts in Job describing snow and hail being stored up in the sky … waiting for when God needs to bring it down ?
Do you think that imagery is correct? If not, then why do you think God making Eve from a rib is correct? It’s not like this is standard procedure. He made Adam out of dust. Why would he really need to do something completely different for another human … one who doesn’t even need a “Y” chromosome?.. just double up on the “X” and she’s good to go!
1 Like
ANSWER: It gives us a lot of important evidence about the age of life on earth. For example, what about the very old rock that is so old that there is no angiosperm pollen in the rock?
Have you investigated what scientists have to say about your assumptions that “What happens when young life gets mixed up in very old rock? Evolutionists get stumped and YECs get stumped.” Are you sure about that? And were these ideas something you found at a Young Earth Creationist website? I ask because “evolutionists” are NOT stumped.
2 Likes
Post deleted
Post deleted
1 Like
I’ve read Mary Schweitzer’s papers. She’s not stumped at all. In fact, they are making considerable headway in understanding how iron preserves some organic structures.
I don’t personally know Dr. Schweitzer but I have friends who do. She is under no “pressure”. She is a scientist so she certainly wants to understand how things work. But to say “she simply must explain this” doesn’t make sense to me. (You may know something my friends and I do not. I’m just saying what other paleontologists tell me who work in that field.)
What “vested interest” are you talking about?
Of course, it is the Young Earth Creationists who have the most to lose with “soft tissues” (a term that they usually misconstrue completely.) They HOPE that “soft tissues” in dinosaur fossils mean that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with people—but, in fact, they have the huge problem that ancient remains from mammoths (for example) have DNA fragments quite routinely, but these “soft tissues” from dinosaurs do not. That is a HUGE problem for YECs.
3 Likes