I never told you that you must accept anything. I have plainly stated that evolution and scripture cannot be wed, unless you did scriptural gymnastics with the texts. Furthermore your interpretation of the evidence is deceptive, therefore Romans 1:20 remains true. The evidence is God’s word, ‘Genesis 1’, my friend 
So can you please give me a coherent, non-deceptive interpretation of the evidence?
One that explains, for instance, why radiometric dating has been so successful in predicting the quality of oil that will be found in oil deposits? Or why so many dating methods give such a close agreement in hundreds of thousands of samples? Or why human DNA and chimp DNA show such a high degree of similarity? Or why that similarity includes sequences that appear to come from viral infections, yet appear in exactly the same place in both genomes?
I’m trying to avoid interpretation as far as possible here, and stick to demonstrable facts about the evidence itself.
1 Like
I am not going to debate any of the problems with radiometric dating, or that dating methods start with assumptions, or the fact that it is the logical fallacy of begging the question that humans and animals must be related, because they share similarities. It has been debated many times by men and women much smarter than I. It will not change your mind, nor will I attempt to. I, myself will only argue from scripture, because God’s word is true. Secular man is driven by presupposition which then causes them to look at the evidence with different lenses, whereas I also look at the evidence with different lenses. We all bring our presuppositions to the table. The question, is whose presupposition is the correct one to have. Which is why I deem it wise to trust the word of God rather than lean on my own understanding, my own reasoning, my own intuition, my own opinion. I will not reinterpret what God plainly states in Genesis 1 in order that it fits a naturalistic view of the world, my friend
Wookin, with all due respect, what you are doing here is flat-out refusing to answer my questions.
1 Like
I answered your questions. I just didn’t answer it in the way you wanted me to. I am not going to get in a pointless debate about radiometric dating, man sharing chromosomes with apes etc…I am a Christian first and foremost and my authority is the word of God and not science. Scientists were not here to observe sub-humans, nor man’s common ancestor with the apes. All we have are fossils, and our imaginations. It is our presuppositions that drive our interpretation of the evidence, not the other way around. You claim it is the evidence proves you are right. When it’s really just your interpretation of the evidence that proves you right. Sorry, if that’s not how you wanted me to answer, but that’s the best way I know, my friend 
And your first presupposition is that your human, fallible, interpretation of God’s word is correct. You are also assuming that the translation of the Hebrew to English is correct and translation is not inspired or inerrant my friend.
2 Likes
The problem is you are challenging my view of Genesis 1, but not my view of the rest of the bible. So if I am fallible on my view of Genesis 1, then just to keep it consistent. I should be fallible on my view of the rest of the bible as well, i.e. the existence of sin, Jesus being God, Jesus dying for us etc… Borrowing your logic, we can’t be sure of anything when pertaining to scripture. Can we?
Emphasis mine.
Wookin, I think what you are doing here is an all or nothing fallacy. You’re assuming that when ONE thing about the Bible is being challenged as “misinterpreted” or “misunderstood”, then jumping to the extreme, that therefore ALL of the Bible is held into question.
Comparing understanding Genesis 1 as meaning 144 hours of consecutive creation to Jesus dying for our sins, is a completely unwarranted comparison … what Christian here is having doubts about the Bible’s multitudes of evidence that points to Jesus dying for our sins?
While on the OTHER hand, Genesis 1 is far from clear.
I’ll ask you once again … how do you have three days, evenings, and mornings, in a row, without a sun? And why do you continue to ignore my questions …
You can’t keep saying “it’s so obvious” while pushing my queries to the wayside …
1 Like
You don’t need a sun to have light. God made light and darkness a marker to measure a day.
Actually I am only reacting. You said, “You are also assuming that the translation of the Hebrew to English is correct and translation is not inspired or inerrant my friend.” My friend, such a statement brings all of the bible under scrutiny.
No, Wookin, you didn’t answer my questions. I was asking specific things. You didn’t address any of them.
You said, “I am not going to debate any of the problems with radiometric dating, or that dating methods start with assumptions.” That is a flat-out refusal to answer my questions about why, if radiometric dating is so misleading, it is so successful at predicting the quality of oil deposits, or why it agrees with other independent dating methods so often.
You also dismissed my question about humans and animals sharing the same DNA as being a case of begging the question, without explaining why it is begging the question. That is also a flat-out refusal to answer my questions about how to handle specific features of these similarities.
I’m sorry to have to say this, but if you gave this kind of responses to a non-Christian to whom you were witnessing, or to a confused young-earth creationist first year science undergraduate, they wouldn’t just think that you didn’t know what you were talking about, or that you were asking for extreme amounts of faith. They would think you were being evasive and dishonest.
1 Like
I’m assuming that this was a typo … and you meant to say “need” …
Thank you for finally responding to me, Wookin.
So we shall conclude that under your interpretation the light that’s spoken of Genesis is a “non-solar light” then, correct? Okay. In Genesis 1:3 it says, “And God called the light DAY … and the darkness he called NIGHT” … what other conclusion do we have then to say this is referring to day and night? But this is the only day and night that doesn’t have a sun … and only existed for three days?
If I’m understanding this, then that means that for three NON-solar days, there was three “Day and Night cycles”, BEFORE the Fourth Day when the sun was created … correct?
But the Bible gives us the reason for why these celestial objects were created … “And Let them (the sun and moon) be for seasons, signs, and for DAYS, and years…” … if according to this interpretation, that time was already measure in three “day and night cycles” lasting 24 hours, then there would have no reason to make the sun and the moon in the first place …
Again … the definition of day is, “The time it takes for the sun go around the earth” … but how are we to understand the existence of three “non-solar days” … You are distorting the meaning of day, by saying that these first three days MUST be 24-hours. UNLESS these days were meant to be figurative, or denoting periods of times, not based on day-and-night cycles …
You have concluded earlier that these were “normal days” … but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The first three days had no sun … yet somehow had “daylight” and “darkness”, and evenings and mornings. The second set of three days, had a Sun and Moon, that were created for the purpose of dictating time, yet we are given no information as to why these were implemented, when exact 24-hour days were going on just fine without them.
Based on my reading of the text, and under your “plain reading” interpretation, I have no choice but to conclude that “days don’t really mean days” for the the first three days, at least, and that the phrase “evening and morning” adds no clarity of meaning to the text, since they have nothing to do with the Sun and Moon. I also must conclude that “daytime” and “nighttime” don’t actually come from the sun and moon, but exist independently from them, even though Genesis 1:16 says, that they rule over the day and the night.
Yes, it is. I have the right to refuse to answer certain question that I feel are not productive
I never said radiometric dating is misleading. Radiometric dating does not act independent. It is bound in whatever scientific model is being used to determine whatever data
Your syllogism is that humans and animals (ape) share many similarities therefore human and apes have a common ancestor, and man is a higher evolved primate. The grass is wet, why is the grass wet? Well the grass is wet, so it must have rained, but the grass could be wet for many different reasons. And so it is with your evolutionary model for man and beast sharing similarities. My biblical model allows me to these so called, “similarities” in a totally different light.
Been there and done that. It is not hard at all to dismantle an Atheist/evolutionist argument. In fact, it is so easy that I don’t like doing it. I do not enjoy ripping another person’s worldview from them with nothing else to hold on to when they reject the gospel. Don’t believe me about how easy it is to tie them into knots. Just watch Ray Comfort take on higher education’s best and brightest; both students and faculty about evolution in “Evolution vs God” http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/
Actually Bill said these words. I didn’t.
I think you misunderstand what Bill meant. Translations AREN’T inspired OR inerrant … the original text is. When a group of people get together to translate ancient texts into another language, like English, Spanish, Japanese, etc., they are doing the best they can to accurately convey the meaning that was intended by the author. It’s not a perfect process, and can be tricky when it comes to translating metaphors, idioms, etc., across cultures and through time periods.
But thankfully we have many, many translations to compare the Bible too, so we can be reasonably confident to a high degree. I love my King James Version Bible … but I don’t believe that King James and his group of translators were perfect and/or inerrant. It’s a very good translation nonetheless.
Genesis 1:4 “… and God divided the light from the darkness.”
Genesis 1:16-18 “And God made two great lights … to divide the light from the darkness.”
What reason does God have for dividing light and darkness twice?
Then don’t say, “I answered your questions. I just didn’t answer it in the way you wanted me to.”
You implied it when you described our interpretations of the evidence as being deceptive.
This is not true. The points I mentioned – searching for oil and cross-checks between different methods – are counterexamples. These are things that validate scientific models and assumptions. They do not depend on them.
You aren’t addressing the fact that I brought up a specific aspect of these similarities. What reason other than common ancestry can there be why human and chimp DNA can share exactly the same endogenous retroviruses in exactly the same places?
- I am not an atheist. I am a Christian. I acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, that He died for our sins, and that God rasied Him from the dead, I stand by that position, evolution or no evolution.
- I am not rejecting the Gospel. I am merely rejecting the belief that the Gospel depends on either a young earth or independent human ancestry. I am also rejecting the equation of evolution with atheism.
- If it’s easy for you to tie scientists in knots, why are you refusing to discuss the science?
- Did you understand the most important point in my last paragraph – the part you haven’t quoted – about sounding evasive?
YUP!
God could have left it that but didn’t
Well first of all you are basing your entire argument and accusing me of distorting day by giving me a scientific definition of day. My understanding of day comes from scripture. God measure a day with light and darkness. The bible says nothing of light or the sun evolving round the earth. I merely repeated what the bible says. Therefore you are accusing the bible of distorting the meaning of day, my friend
Ya…gap theorists (Hugh Ross) likes to use that argument. It doesn’t work biblically. I don’t have time today, but I will try to get at it tomorrow and give you a reason why there is no gap and that light and darkness is current with the sun and the moon.
So because God doesn’t give you the reason, that means you should reject Genesis 1?..oooook
Ya, I see what you mean, Even though other text says, God created the world in 6 days, but presuppositions can be a powerful thing
[quote=“Charles_Alexandre, post:23, topic:5534”] I agree with Ted that Conrad Hyers’ book, “The Meaning of Creation” in which those two chapters appear is one of the best books in terms of whether Genesis 1-2 really is dealing with the physical creation of the universe. It’s such a good book that it practically makes me wonder why anything else ever had to be written as far as the Creation / Evolution controversy goes.
[/quote]
@Wookin_Panub, let’s try to take this in another direction. Reading the exchange above is like trying to swim in a jar of honey: it’s hard work and no one gets very far.
Let’s leave science out of this. I understand that you are committed to a particular interpretation of Genesis 1, so I’d be interested to hear your opinion of the ideas by Conrad Hyers that Charles and I both like a great deal. Please read this article by Hyers (which I linked above): D:\ASAWEB~1\PSCF\1984\JASA9-84Heyers.htm and then come back with your analysis of his analysis.
Hyers’ goal was simple, and (I think) very similar to yours, Wookin. He wanted to read the Bible on its own terms, as its own early Hebrew audience would have read it at that time and place–not as modern people with lots of scientific knowledge would tend to read it.
1 Like
I don’t really find this a satisfying answer. It implies that the Sun doesn’t emit light, nor that the Moon reflects light … that day and night are just realms that the Sun and Moon occupy.
Assuming there was some typos here and you meant to say, “God could have left it out but He didn’t” … I find that kind of illogical to state the purposes of creation that are redundant? Are you saying that Genesis 1:14 is irrelevant then?
We measure the months according to the cycles of the moon, and measure days, years, and seasons, according to the cycles of the sun … just like the the reasons stated in Genesis 1:14 says, these are to be used as cosmic clocks. Seems to be the biblical definition to me … and one that we continue to observe.
What the Bible says, and what the Bible means are not always the same things. To reiterate an earlier point here is a conversation you had with Christy:
">>>So if I gouged out my eyes. Will that stop me from sinning?
Nope. It’s a clue to the figurative meaning intended. Kind of like it’s a clue that light and mornings and evenings exist in Genesis 1 before the sun.<<<"
To my knowledge, you did not respond to her, when I thought she made an excellent point. How is the logic of the argument any different. When Jesus says I am the vine, you know that it’s a figurative language, because it’s a human that’s speaking, and that he’s not an actual plant. We know that God doesn’t literally store rain, hail and snow, “in storehouses” (Job 38:22) …
For the same reason, I get a strong impression that it’s figurative language when it’s talking about daylight existing INDEPENDENTLY of the sun …
First off, Hugh Ross isn’t a gap theorists. He’s a Day-Age theorist. Gap Theory is the belief that there’s a gap of time existing between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 … where some cataclysmic event destroyed God’s creation, then sometime late God “re-built” everything … I don’t believe in gap theory.
Hugh Ross believes that the days represent long periods of time (ages or epochs) … he has very lengthy videos defending his case, using the Genesis narrative, as well as other creation texts in the Bible … I’m not saying I believe in Day-Age theory, but I do find his research nonetheless thorough … make of it what you will.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here?? Are you saying that daylight and darkness existed BEFORE the sun … or that daylight and darkness always existed WITH the sun and moon?? I never said there was a gap. Where are you getting that idea?
No. I’m saying it makes me do a double take, and think deeper on the text. I’m attempting to read Genesis 1 critically, and engage with the how and why. I ask myself, “What is this supposed to teach me? Why did God do it this way and not that way? What am I supposed to learn from this?” …
As I’ve said many times earlier, the first time I read Genesis when I was a YEC, I asked myself, “Now wait a minute. God created the Sun on the 4th day … and yet daytime and darkness already existed for the first three days? That’s odd. wait a little bit further … ‘And let them be for days, and years…’ … well hold on a second! Haven’t days already passed? What measured the days before?” … and so on and so forth.
I’m not rejecting Genesis. Those are your words. I’m seriously questioning a LITERALISTIC interpretation of Genesis. That is not the same thing. A literalistic interpretation, that I had previously, left me with a Genesis 1 that had self-contradictions and internal inconsistencies … so I sought out other ways of understanding it that was had fewer self-contradictions.
First off, I’m not sure why you feel the need to add sarcasm in most of your comments. It makes it a little bit frustrating to carry on a conversation … if I’m being completely honest.
That aside … yes we can bring in other texts from Exodus to the table, if you like. However, I don’t feel that it negates my previous points, that Genesis 1 (By Itself) does not make coherent sense, under a 144 hour view.
When it comes to the Exodus passages, from what I’ve read, it can be understood as more of an analogy then a chronology. Bearing the image of God, it puts us in a special position, to strive to be like him, and represent him the best way we can … He works, we work … He rests, we rest … and so forth.
The analogy of course, isn’t exactly perfect, because God does not work for 8-16 hours, then rest for 8. Also whereas are our work week is ongoing, his just happened once.
Others have argued this point much better than I have, but I’ll try my best.
In Hebrews 4, I get the impression that we are still living in “the seventh day” which is ongoing.
I don’t like having to repeat myself, but when you mention presuppositions, it sounds like you are implying that I have a preconceived idea that the universe is old, and am therefore inserting that into the text … but that isn’t the case. For these questions about Genesis 1 bothered me, when I believed the universe to be young.
Perhaps I am mistaken … and you may correct me if I’m wrong.
@Wookin_Panub, Hugh Ross doesn’t promote the “gap theory.” Indeed, the “gap” in the “gap theory” refers to a supposed gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3, before the creation days rather than right in the middle of them as you seem to think.
The question about the nature of the first three creation days, relative to the next three days, is a very old one and has nothing whatsoever to do with “evolution” or modern science. It has everything to do with the biblical text itself and with common sense. Many church fathers were puzzled by the combination of facts that (a) the Sun and Moon are not “made” until the fourth day, (b) they (and nothing else) are explicitly given the job of separating light from darkness, and (c) yet, there has been light and darkness since day one. When certain people today (Ken Ham would be a prominent example, and I gather you agree with him) just assert dogmatically that the six “days” must all be interpreted as “ordinary days,” and that this is the only legitimate interpretation that doesn’t “compromise” the meaning of Scripture, they are basically saying that a lot of church fathers (including several who staunchly opposed various heresies) were dangerous “compromisers” who were unwilling to hold fast to biblical truth.
That’s just nuts, IMO. Many other questions also arise from the text and common sense, leaving all scientific knowledge out of the conversation. To assume that one specific interpretation must be correct and all others are flawed is simply arbitrary. You aren’t going to persuade anyone of your view by being arbitrary.
3 Likes