Pre-Adamic World: Fact or Fiction

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In the sense that God created the universe in such a way that endosymbiosis could evolve.    Even random mutation is within His power:

Shalom, The Barbarian.

One can have too much influence by those who believe in Evolution. The very word "evolve" means to "out-turn" or "turn outward," suggesting improvement and growth. It is just as likely that the variations within a species would be detrimental to the organism or to its habitat or environment; that should be better termed "devolve." It's better to simply call it a "variation" within the species. Random mutation, too, has connotations implied that suggest a positive outcome, but anyone who has studied genetics knows that mutations are 99.5% negative outcomes.

We live in a fallen world, and sin brought forth death and decay. This led to the Second Law of Thermodynamics introduced within God's Creation. We now live in a world of a balanced ecosystem. Throw a monkeywrench into that balance, and things are more likely to go haywire than to get better!

God is EXTREMELY EFFICIENT! He is not given to making "random mutations."

One thing about God every evolutionist needs to understand is that God is ETERNAL and OMNISCIENT. That simply means that NOTHING EVER TAKES GOD BY SURPRISE! What may be a surprise to us, is within the bounds of the fact that God has "DECLARED THE END FROM THE BEGINNING." He doesn't just "KNOW" it; He has "DECLARED" it! NOTHING we do - or that the UNIVERSE will do - will alter it!

Long ago, men breeded horses with donkeys. The offspring is called a "mule"; while it is stronger than a donkey, it is also more headstrong and stubborn than a horse! But, the REAL kicker is that a mule is STERILE from birth! It cannot reproduce! Why not?

"On the genetic level, the total number of chromosomes in a horse is 64 and donkeys have 62 chromosomes. A mule is a hybrid of a female horse and a male donkey. Hinny is a hybrid of a female donkey and a male horse. Both the offspring (hybrid offspring) produced by donkeys and horses are infertile, sterile, and cannot have their own offspring."

- byjus.com

It's just plain WRONG to make the assumptions that chance in recombination and time will create anything. We're just not that lucky!

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God wills whatever is required for a thing that He wills, as has been said. [See above, ch. 83.] But it befits certain things, according to the mode of their nature, that they be contingent and not necessary. Therefore, God wills that some things be contingent. Now, the efficacy of the divine will requires not only that something be that God wills to be, but also that it be as He wills it to be. For, among natural agents as well, when the acting power is strong it assimilates its effect to itself not only as to species but also as to the accidents, which are certain modes of that thing. Therefore, the efficacy of the divine will does not remove contingency.

St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles

I generally like Thomas Aquinas; however, no man is perfect. God's WILL is about what is right and wrong. God's WILL for a person is for that person to do what is RIGHT! It is contrary to God's Will for that person to do wrong! God's WILL is what God WANTS.

God's PLAN for Creation or for a person's life is an entirely different matter. He doesn't tell us very much about His PLAN, especially for the Creation! Prophecies are given that reveal certain aspects of God's PLAN, but it is sketchy at best. Quite frankly, that's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! God's PLAN, however, we can rest assured, has every "contingency" accounted for. He has "DECLARED the end from the beginning!" (Isaiah 46:10). 

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Endosymbiosis would be design in the sense that IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton sees design:

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.

One of the strongest traits of a human being is his or her ability to IMAGINE. The IMAGINATION of human beings is a powerful tool in the ability to create things and seeing scenarios that are outside of the bounds of our day-to-day activities.

The human IMAGINATION gives us the ability to see things that COULD be, and has given rise to a great number of inventions and innovations down through time.

HOWEVER,

IMAGINATION is also our GREATEST "ACHILLES' HEEL!" We can be so enthralled with our fiction, that we begin to believe our own lies! It's like Marvel Comic fans living in the Marvel Multiverse, knowing the characters so well!

Think of how immersed fans are in such franchises as Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Jurassic Park, Marvel Comics, D C Comics, J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and the list goes on and on!

Well, here's another one: Evolution! When one is honest, how much of the Evolution Theory has ever truly been proven? No one was there when it supposedly was happening, no one can duplicate the alleged results, and there's no definitive test to show that it actually occurred!

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law.

With all due respect to Michael Denton for his own accomplishments, he knows NOTHING about special creationism. Living organisms are indeed natural forms the moment they were created! Origin and design were indeed seemlessly created into existence with no apparent change to the environment. This is why scientists are misled by their science-like theories! God didn't suspend natural law; HE FORMED THE NATURAL LAWS!

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

Which was all predicted in 2 Peter 3:3-6.

2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJV)

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days SCOFFERS (those who poke fun at others), walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying,

"Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (Uniformitarianism).

5 For this they WILLINGLY are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (This is the original Creation from Adam to Noach.)

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (This is the Flood of Noach's day.)

These two events, Creation and the Flood, explain all we see in nature, but Evolutionists PURPOSELY, WILLINGLY, are IGNORANT of these events!

"Ignorant" doesn't mean "stupid"; it just means that those who are "ignorant" "IGNORE" what the evidence is actually trying to tell them! They don't listen; they don't WANT to listen! Consequently, they deny the evidence, and they SCOFF at those who accept the evidence! That is not only unprofessional, it's downright RUDE!

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Let's rephrase: Actually, the Evolutionist's TWIST on the teleological argument and that of the special creationist's point of view are indeed mutually exclusive accounts of the world.

And, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world was created in a relatively short time and that much of what is thought to be evidence of "long periods of time" is actually evidence for a WORLDWIDE catastrophe called the FLOOD, the less credible becomes the evolutionist's worldview!

[B3L13v3R]

On the original post question: "Pre-Adamic World: Fact or Fiction"

Fiction.
How any can read all "that" into two verses found in Gen 1:1-2 is truly incredible.
The "real" Adam, and the only Adam in Genesis was not mentioned or created until verses 26-27:
Gen 1:26-27  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  (27)  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis chapter 2 gives us a few more specifics as to how God created the first couple.

Honestly, The "Dake Study bible" is on my shelf only because of a handful of people some 35ish years ago recommended it. Upon reading many of "his notes," I found it to be a hodgepodge of truth and error combined, and much of that "error" quite heretical. Not recommended at all. There is no "Pre Adamic Race" as he, or anyone else like him, has taught. Along with so much more confusion through number of "Dake's" personal beliefs that are quite anti-biblical. Dake's also believes there is "9" in the Trinity instead of "3."

This Messianic Brother in Christ had quite a bit to say on Finis Dake and his writings. http://www.letusreason.org/Pent74.htm
The portion brought up on here on the "Pre-Adamic World" he briefly touched on:
"...Dake spoke of a gap theory that went further than many who believe of a gap taking place in Gen.1 to v.2. He claimed Jesus himself taught about a Pre-Adamic race (in the context of Matthew 13:35). Dake said that the expression from the “foundation of the world” should be translated “from the overthrow of the world” meaning literally the overthrow of the Pre-Adamic race.
Whether there is a gap or not does not in any way prove there was a pre-adamic race. The only pre-Adam beings existing were the various angels. Job identifies them as watching God lay the foundations of Earth (Job 38:2-7)."

[Guest]

2 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

On the original post question: "Pre-Adamic World: Fact or Fiction"

Fiction.
How any can read all "that" into two verses found in Gen 1:1-2 is truly incredible.
The "real" Adam, and the only Adam in Genesis was not mentioned or created until verses 26-27:
Gen 1:26-27  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  (27)  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

What is fiction here, can be pointed out in another resource which can be explained away with from another source: Pre-Adamic World

2 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

Genesis chapter 2 gives us a few more specifics as to how God created the first couple.

Honestly, The "Dake Study bible" is on my shelf only because of a handful of people some 35ish years ago recommended it. Upon reading many of "his notes," I found it to be a hodgepodge of truth and error combined, and much of that "error" quite heretical. Not recommended at all. There is no "Pre Adamic Race" as he, or anyone else like him, has taught. Along with so much more confusion through number of "Dake's" personal beliefs that are quite anti-biblical. Dake's also believes there is "9" in the Trinity instead of "3.

As I've explained previously, I've had my own issues with the Dake Study Bible with Commentary. When I read the bible, I have the Unger's Bible Commentary (Old Testament) the Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old and New Testament, 2 Volumes), Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Expositor's Bible Commentary (49 Books), et al. This study led me to become a resource junkie. I have multiple commentaries, Interlinear bibles, dictionaries, translations, manners and customs, etc. 

2 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

"This Messianic Brother in Christ had quite a bit to say on Finis Dake and his writings.

http://www.letusreason.org/Pent74.htm

The portion brought up on here on the "Pre-Adamic World" he briefly touched on:
"...Dake spoke of a gap theory that went further than many who believe of a gap taking place in Gen.1 to v.2. He claimed Jesus himself taught about a Pre-Adamic race (in the context of Matthew 13:35). Dake said that the expression from the “foundation of the world” should be translated “from the overthrow of the world” meaning literally the overthrow of the Pre-Adamic race.

Whether there is a gap or not does not in any way prove there was a pre-adamic race. The only pre-Adam beings existing were the various angels. Job identifies them as watching God lay the foundations of Earth (Job 38:2-7)."

I am not convinced there was a humanoid type race before the Biblical Flood resulting in Genesis 1:2. I rely on Biblical text and 1 Enoch to understand what went on.

[DeighAnn]

6 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

Whether there is a gap or not does not in any way prove there was a pre-adamic race. The only pre-Adam beings existing were the various angels. Job identifies them as watching God lay the foundations of Earth (Job 38:2-7)."

Have you considered this possibility? 

Angels in heaven with God. 

Satan in heaven ruling over kingdoms.  

the earth created

Satans fall, 1/3 stolen 

Suddenly, earth covered in water and blackness, the world that was perished.

God brings back the light

brings the chaos back into order

6th day creates all the different races (what an easy way to explain why ALL the HISTORIES of the different races go back to approx 6000 years and never a 'mention' of any coming into 'being')

8the day the 'bloodline' through which Christ comes

Cain kills Abel

Cain goes to the land of Nod - Do you think there is Scripture for all that?

12When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Just saying God sure does put a BUNCH of things in the word that point that way, if one is so inclined to seek them out.  Treasures, buried and must be dug out, and not for the average bear.  Don't have much to do with Salvation but a lot to do with understanding God and His workings and who we are and where we came from and why we are here and one thing you never ask yourself is Why would God....that's for sure.  If one is so inclined.  We have got to figure that God knows there are those who would become obsessed and so he gave something for every one.  Some seek more truth through the use of numbers by counting things when listed to see how many to find more understanding.  Some seek through acrostics.  Some through language.  The list goes on. 

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalms 12:6 KJV

I have NO IDEA how that is to be understood but I love the possibilities...eternal...what a long long long time ESPECIALLY to be GOD.  HOW much FUN do you think HE has had?  I just can't hardly wait to leave this body and go home...but we all got a job to do...Not my will, but His.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

One can have too much influence by those who believe in Evolution. The very word "evolve" means to "out-turn" or "turn outward," suggesting improvement and growth.

Just as one can have too much influence by those who believe in gravity.    Nevertheless, gravity and evolution are facts of the world we live in, and are observed realities.   Your definition of "evolution" is one reason Darwin didn't like the word and only use it once in his book to describe "descent with modification", which is what biological evolution actually is. 

Evolution doesn't guarantee improvement, any more than free enterprise guarantees that all businesses will prosper.   Indeed, most won't.    Adam Smith explained why this process tended to produce the economic efficiency that raises overall prosperity.  Notice he wrote "tended."   It doesn't always.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It is just as likely that the variations within a species would be detrimental to the organism or to its habitat or environment;

Indeed, just as most new business enterprises fail.   The "hidden hand" tends to improve the economy but at the cost of many losing.   So we see the successful populations that became more fit by random variation and natural selection, but we no longer see the populations that did not become so.   Because they die out.   The vast majority of species that once existed are extinct.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

that should be better termed "devolve."

No.  That is still evolution.  Remember, descent with modification, or with genetics, a change in allele frequency over time.   "Devolution" would be a lack of change over time.   BTW, Darwin pointed this out, arguing that a well-fitted population in a constant environment should be kept from evolving by natural selection.   Which is what we have seen in reality.  It is why punctuated equilibrium tends to be the norm in populations.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Random mutation, too, has connotations implied that suggest a positive outcome, but anyone who has studied genetics knows that mutations are 99.5% negative outcomes.

In fact, most of them don't do much of anything.   Humans usually have about a hundred mutations that didn't exist in either of our parents.   Yet life goes on.   A few are harmful, and natural selection tends to remove them.   And a very few are useful, and tend to spread in the population by natural selection.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

We live in a fallen world, and sin brought forth death and decay. This led to the Second Law of Thermodynamics introduced within God's Creation.

The Second Law always existed in God's creation.    If not, Adam and Eve would not have had to eat.   The death brought forth by sin is, as God says in Genesis, a spiritual death.   He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter.   If God is truthful than the death is a spiritual one.   Adam and Eve were never immortal.   Indeed God expresses concern that they might become so, and makes sure that does not happen.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, here's another one: Evolution! When one is honest, how much of the Evolution Theory has ever truly been proven?

Darwin's four points:

1. more are born than can survive to reproduce

2. every organism is slightly different than its parents

3. some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

4. the useful differences tend to accumulate over time and the harmful ones tend to disappear and new species will often result from these changes over time.

Which of these do you think has not been verified?

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No one was there when it supposedly was happening, no one can duplicate the alleged results, and there's no definitive test to show that it actually occurred!

We are here now, and it's observed to be happening.   We even see speciation from time to time.   Lab experiments have verified that it happens.   And population genetics is the science of measuring evolution, involving mathematical analysis of such changes in allele frequencies.   Would you like to see some examples?

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

With all due respect to Michael Denton for his own accomplishments, he knows NOTHING about special creationism. Living organisms are indeed natural forms the moment they were created!

Denton is quite aware of special creation.    Living organisms are natural forms, since God used nature to make them, as He says in Genesis.   He didn't poof them into existence supernaturally.   He created nature, and nature brought them forth as He intended.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

God didn't suspend natural law; HE FORMED THE NATURAL LAWS!

You are correct.   He didn't use magic to make living things.   He created a few simple rules and from that His universe developed, and brought forth life.    God uses nature for almost everything in this world.   Miracles are not done because He didn't design properly; they are given to teach us things about Him.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world was created in a relatively short time and that much of what is thought to be evidence of "long periods of time" is actually evidence for a WORLDWIDE catastrophe called the FLOOD, the less credible becomes the evolutionist's worldview!

There just isn't any evidence for that kind of thing.   Even many creationists admit that the evidence gives "the appearance" of great age.   But God is truth and would not fake evidence.

You've brought up a lot of good questions here.   Would you like to focus on population genetics and how Darwin's four points are tested and examined in a mathematical context?    Information theory and things like the Hardy-Weinberg equation are very useful to scientists studying biological evolution.  

Or perhaps you'd like to talk about how natural selection determines the pace of evolution in individual populations and environments?   I like where you're going.   Let me know what you think.

 

[Retrobyter]

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

So you believe God created or was living in darkness. Where do you see that elsewhere in scripture?

Shalom, Saved.One.by.Grace.

Psalm 139:7-12 (KJV)

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me."
12 YEA, THE DARKNESS HIDETH NOT FROM THEE; BUT THE NIGHT SHINETH AS THE DAY: THE DARKNESS AND THE LIGHT ARE BOTH ALIKE TO THEE.

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Or when someone assumes this, leads one to erroneous assumptions.

I've SHOWN you the proof! Here's the Hebrew:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר  יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃
וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שֵׁנִֽי׃ פ
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָקֹ֣ום אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֔שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינֹ֔ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעֹו־בֹ֖ו עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַתֹּוצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעֹו־בֹ֖ו לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שְׁלִישִֽׁי׃ פ
Now, look at the words highlighted in the first verse, they are "hashaamayim" and "haa'aarets," meaning "the skies" and "the earth" respectively. The ending words of verse 5 are "vayhiy 'eveV vayhiy boqer yowm 'echad," which translates to "there-was evening there-was morning day one."

Next, look at verse 8. The first words are "vayyiqraa' Elohiym laaraaqiya` shaamaayim." "And-gave-the-name God to-the-expanse skies"

Next, look at verse 10. The first words are "vayyiqraa' Elohiym layyabaashaah erets." "And-gave-the-name God to-the-dry-[land] earth."

These are the two verses where God actually NAMES the expanse "skies" and the dry land "earth!"

These things didn't exist in verse 1, they were created and formed and NAMED in verses 8 and 10! Thus, verse 1 is a SUMMARY of what is to follow! One cannot be using their names BEFORE they are actually NAMED!

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I've looked at the text quite closely and have arrived at a much different understanding, like multiple theologians before me. Your position seems unorthodox to me. You're changing the text to fit your theology, not letting the text speak for itself, by letting scripture translate scripture.

No, not really. Look at the text above! I've not changed a thing!

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

When did I bring up Jeremiah 4?

You didn't, but I've encountered others who believe in a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and they DO try to supply the information in Jeremiah 4 into this gap. I was simply anticipating the possibility.

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

So you dismiss bible passages which don't support your viewpoint.

Of course not. It's simply that Jeremiah 4 has nothing to do with Genesis 1:1 and 1:2! Read the WHOLE 4th chapter of Jeremiah and LISTEN to what he's talking about! Don't be in the mode of "seeing if there's something in the chapter that could be used in Genesis 1!" Let the Scriptures speak to YOU; don't try putting YOUR words into the Scriptures!

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Thanks for the advice.

You're welcome. Take it to heart, and it will help.

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

What is the meaning of Hashem? Answer The short answer is that Hashem means "The Name" in Hebrew. When reading the Torah or praying, Jews who come across the name of God (transliterated into English as YHWH) will substitute the word Adonai. In other contexts and in casual conversation, Jews who encounter God's name will substitute Hashem instead. We also know that Exodus 20:7 reads, “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name” (cf. Deuteronomy 5:11). This command in Scripture is the reason that Jews use Hashem in place of YHWH. The word translated “misuse” carries the idea of speaking (or writing) the name of God in an “empty,” “worthless” manner. Observant Jews are concerned about potentially blaspheming God by misusing His name. According to one Jewish tradition, a person who says God’s name while in a state of sinful impurity is in danger of death.

Yes, I know all this. I am a Jew, y'know, even if I'm Messianic (a "missionary" )! But David used the Name quite frequently! And, he didn't have to resort to saying "haShem" or "Adonay" unless he MEANT "Adonay! " When he was on the run from Sha'uwl haMelekh, King Saul, he used God's Name quite frequently in fervent prayers for His protection and wisdom!

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The rabbi Rashi taught that God allowed His name to be pronounced “only in the place to which the Shechinah comes, and that is in the Temple in Jerusalem. There permission was given to the priests to mention the Explicit Name when they raise their hands to bless the people” (from Mechilta, Sifrei, Num. 6:23, Sotah 38a). [exerted from Got.Questions.org]

We disagree, needless to say.

With all due respect to Shlomoh Yitschaqiy, known by the acronym for "Rabbenu SheYichyeh (Our Rabbi, may he live)" or "Rashiy," he was also a MAN that was bound to this tradition. But, again, I go back to David! David wrote many of the Psalms and used the Name quite frequently in many of them! I guarantee you that he was not always in the Tabernacle writing those psalms! (The Temple hadn't even been built, yet!)

[David1701]

22 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Alien in respect to life that is foreign to the body, though still of the earth. Us humans host around 10,000 species, mini earths.

Ah, that's what you meant!  Yes, we are walking ecosystems.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Saved.One.by.Grace.

Psalm 139:7-12 (KJV)

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me."
12 YEA, THE DARKNESS HIDETH NOT FROM THEE; BUT THE NIGHT SHINETH AS THE DAY: THE DARKNESS AND THE LIGHT ARE BOTH ALIKE TO THEE.

This speaks of the omnipresence of God.

(Psalms 139:7)  Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
(Psalms 139:8)  If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
(Psalms 139:9)  If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
(Psalms 139:10)  even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.
(Psalms 139:11)  If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,”
(Psalms 139:12)  even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I've SHOWN you the proof! Here's the Hebrew:

You've shown me nothing except that scripture can be taken out of context.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר  יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃
וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שֵׁנִֽי׃ פ
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָקֹ֣ום אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֔שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינֹ֔ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעֹו־בֹ֖ו עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַתֹּוצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעֹו־בֹ֖ו לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שְׁלִישִֽׁי׃ פ
Now, look at the words highlighted in the first verse, they are "hashaamayim" and "haa'aarets," meaning "the skies" and "the earth" respectively. The ending words of verse 5 are "vayhiy 'eveV vayhiy boqer yowm 'echad," which translates to "there-was evening there-was morning day one."

This shows you don't understand the Gap Theory. What is spoken after Genesis 1:3 has to do with the restoration of the Earth after God's Judgement. What the fallen elohim were doing on the Earth, it's not clearly known but it did cause a Satanic Flood (aka LF). Many believer's in the Gap Theory also believe in a 7 day restoration as stated after Genesis 1:3.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Next, look at verse 8. The first words are "vayyiqraa' Elohiym laaraaqiya` shaamaayim." "And-gave-the-name God to-the-expanse skies"

Next, look at verse 10. The first words are "vayyiqraa' Elohiym layyabaashaah erets." "And-gave-the-name God to-the-dry-[land] earth."

These are the two verses where God actually NAMES the expanse "skies" and the dry land "earth!"

These things didn't exist in verse 1, they were created and formed and NAMED in verses 8 and 10! Thus, verse 1 is a SUMMARY of what is to follow! One cannot be using their names BEFORE they are actually NAMED!

No, not really. Look at the text above! I've not changed a thing!

You didn't, but I've encountered others who believe in a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and they DO try to supply the information in Jeremiah 4 into this gap. I was simply anticipating the possibility.

Of course not. It's simply that Jeremiah 4 has nothing to do with Genesis 1:1 and 1:2! Read the WHOLE 4th chapter of Jeremiah and LISTEN to what he's talking about! Don't be in the mode of "seeing if there's something in the chapter that could be used in Genesis 1!" Let the Scriptures speak to YOU; don't try putting YOUR words into the Scriptures!

You're welcome. Take it to heart, and it will help.

Yes, I know all this. I am a Jew, y'know, even if I'm Messianic (a "missionary" )! But David used the Name quite frequently! And, he didn't have to resort to saying "haShem" or "Adonay" unless he MEANT "Adonay! " When he was on the run from Sha'uwl haMelekh, King Saul, he used God's Name quite frequently in fervent prayers for His protection and wisdom!

With all due respect to Shlomoh Yitschaqiy, known by the acronym for "Rabbenu SheYichyeh (Our Rabbi, may he live)" or "Rashiy," he was also a MAN that was bound to this tradition. But, again, I go back to David! David wrote many of the Psalms and used the Name quite frequently in many of them! I guarantee you that he was not always in the Tabernacle writing those psalms! (The Temple hadn't even been built, yet!)

Jeremiah 4 does not add to our understanding of Genesis 1:1-3. Your comment above is just more smoke and mirrors to try and explain things with limited Biblical understanding.

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Just as one can have too much influence by those who believe in gravity.    Nevertheless, gravity and evolution are facts of the world we live in, and are observed realities. 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

I'll just stop you right there, and simply point out that evolution is NOT a "fact!" It is a THEORY at best, and actually, if you investigate the definitions, it's really more of a hypothesis - a guess! There's NOTHING "proven" about evolution. It is still a theory, however widely accepted by the scientific intelligencia.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

  Your definition of "evolution" is one reason Darwin didn't like the word and only use it once in his book to describe "descent with modification", which is what biological evolution actually is. 

Evolution doesn't guarantee improvement, any more than free enterprise guarantees that all businesses will prosper.   Indeed, most won't.    Adam Smith explained why this process tended to produce the economic efficiency that raises overall prosperity.  Notice he wrote "tended."   It doesn't always.

Well, Darwin chose not to use the word "evolution," but "science" - the god of this world - still uses it anyway. You've just shown they do in the following words "biological evolution!" 

I understand Adam Smith' economic theory; it's similar to a force table in physics. If everyone is pulling on the economy (the ring in the middle of the table to which all the strings are tied) in their own directions (vectors), and if the pulls are generally the same in strength (weight), the economy shifts very little, and for all practical purposes, remains stationary.

One doesn't have the same thing going on in biology. Each generation has a slight possibility of mutation. Within each mutation, 99.5% of those mutations are detrimental to the species. It doesn't follow that conditions would EVER be right enough to bring a species upward at all! To the contrary, all conditions of mutations would tend to be a DETRIMENT to that species! Furthermore, how does that mutation survive past the one generation in which it is found?! Time is also not conducive to the survival of even a "hopeful monster," as it's been called.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Indeed, just as most new business enterprises fail.   The "hidden hand" tends to improve the economy but at the cost of many losing.  

UNLESS, to use my force-table analogy, the ring slips off the table! When the economy is thrown off-whack by one weight exerting more of a force than the other weights, the overall economy does NOT survive, and people abandon the model with an uprising!

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So we see the successful populations that became more fit by random variation and natural selection, but we no longer see the populations that did not become so.   Because they die out.   The vast majority of species that once existed are extinct.

Or so goes the theory. Since when does God ever "flip an coin" and "hope for the best?!"

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  That is still evolution.  Remember, descent with modification, or with genetics, a change in allele frequency over time.   "Devolution" would be a lack of change over time.   BTW, Darwin pointed this out, arguing that a well-fitted population in a constant environment should be kept from evolving by natural selection.   Which is what we have seen in reality.  It is why punctuated equilibrium tends to be the norm in populations.

In fact, most of them don't do much of anything.   Humans usually have about a hundred mutations that didn't exist in either of our parents.   Yet life goes on.   A few are harmful, and natural selection tends to remove them.   And a very few are useful, and tend to spread in the population by natural selection.

Name one.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The Second Law always existed in God's creation.    If not, Adam and Eve would not have had to eat.   The death brought forth by sin is, as God says in Genesis, a spiritual death.  

There's that wonderful little word again, "spiritual." Generally speaking, NOBODY knows what it means, and EVERYBODY tends to use is wrongly!

OUR way of eating may involve the Second Law, but it was not originally to be found in God's Creation: Here's how I know:

When God created human beings, we read this more general account of Day 6 in Genesis 1:24-31. (By the way, I use GREEN for narration, PURPLE for the words of God, RED for the words of the Messiah Yeeshuwa` (Jesus Christ), and BLUE for the words of anyone else, when quoting Scripture.)

Genesis 1:24-31 (KJV)

24 And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind":

and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

29 And God said,

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat":

and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis chapter 2 goes into the details of the week with emphasis on those of the sixth day:

Genesis 2:4-25 (KJV)

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

18 And the LORD God said, 

"It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (suitable) for him."

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said,

"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Verse 7 shows the actual creation of the Man (Hebrew: haa'Aadaam = "the Red-[man]," which came to be his name "Adam"): The Hebrew of verse 7 is ...

וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃

This transliterates to ...

7 Vayyiytser YHWH Elohiym et-haa'aadaam `aafaar min-haa'adaamaah vayyipach b'apaayow nishmat chayyiym vayhiy haa'aadaam lnefesh chayyaah:

This translates word-for-word to ...

7 And-formed YHWH God (d.o.->)-the-red-[man] of-dust from-the-red-[ground] and-puffed in-his-nostrils a-puff of-living-things and-became the-red-[man] to-a-breathing-creature living:

The word "soul" from the Hebrew word "nefesh" (which in this verse has the lamed- prefix meaning "to" or "into") means an "air-breathing-creature." The verb form "naafash" means "to breathe." And, as I've told others, the verse gives us the activity of God being to "jump-start" the body He had made, by forcing air into his nostrils and starting the man's breathing reflex. We do the same with the CPR technique called "rescue breathing" today, only we hold the nose closed and puff through the mouth instead. There was NOTHING special added to the man in this procedure. The "soul" IS the man "breathing."

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter.   If God is truthful than the death is a spiritual one.

Nope. And there's that word "spiritual" again! No, the death that Adam dies the moment He ate from the tree, is at the CELLULAR level! It was at that point that death was introduced into his organism. He only succumbed to death when he died sufficiently to end all functions in Genesis 5.

Here's the curse to Adam:

Genesis 3:17-20

17 And unto Adam he said,

"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it': cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

20 And Adam called his wife's name "Eve" ("Chawwaah" or "Chavvaah" = "Life"); because she was the mother of all living.

Then, we have his actual death in Genesis 5:

Genesis 5:1-5 (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name "Adam" ("'Aadaam" = "red-[man]"), in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty (130) years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name "Seth" ("Sheit" = "six"): 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred (800) years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty (930) years: and he died.

He was able to survive for 930 years, but eventually, He ceased to breathe and returned to dust.

 

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 Adam and Eve were never immortal.  

Of course not, but they COULD have been.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Indeed God expresses concern that they might become so, and makes sure that does not happen.

Right.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Darwin's four points:

1. more are born than can survive to reproduce

2. every organism is slightly different than its parents

3. some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

4. the useful differences tend to accumulate over time and the harmful ones tend to disappear and new species will often result from these changes over time.

Number 4 is just plain wishful thinking.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which of these do you think has not been verified?

How about "all of the above?"

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

We are here now, and it's observed to be happening.   We even see speciation from time to time.   Lab experiments have verified that it happens.   And population genetics is the science of measuring evolution, involving mathematical analysis of such changes in allele frequencies.   Would you like to see some examples?

Examples that are not only verifiable but repeatable would have to be provided.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Denton is quite aware of special creation.    Living organisms are natural forms, since God used nature to make them, as He says in Genesis.   He didn't poof them into existence supernaturally.   He created nature, and nature brought them forth as He intended.

Nonsense. God created them for the FIRST time, and they were made to be within their own kinds, or ... didn't you read that part?

Genesis 1:11-12, 20-22, 24-25 (KJV)

11 And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth":

and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

...

20 And God said,

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

...

24 And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind":

and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You are correct.   He didn't use magic to make living things.   He created a few simple rules and from that His universe developed, and brought forth life.    God uses nature for almost everything in this world.   Miracles are not done because He didn't design properly; they are given to teach us things about Him.

Well, this is just hogwash. He created all life ex nihilo = out of nothing! He SPOKE things into existence! Why do you think we read in John ...

John 1:1-4, 14-18  (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word (Greek: ho Logos = "the expression of a thought," "a saying," "a VERBAL Word") , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light (infrared radiation) of men.
...

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory [Greek: doxa = "brightness," as on the Mount of Transfiguration], the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying,

"This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he WAS before me."

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 

 

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There just isn't any evidence for that kind of thing.   Even many creationists admit that the evidence gives "the appearance" of great age.   But God is truth and would not fake evidence.

It's not "faking evidence" if the "evidence" was never supposed to be interpreted as "evidence" in the first place! In the Creation account, God did not create the "sun" and the "moon" (Hebrew: shemesh and yareeach, respectively); He created TWO GREAT LIGHTS (Hebrew: shneey hamm'orowt haggdowliym = "two the-'from-light's the-great-ones," Genesis 1:16), then AFTERWARD we read, "He made the stars also" (Hebrew: "v'eet hakkowkhaaviym" = "[He-made...] and-(d.o.->) the-round-objects.")

This may be a little hard to understand, but God created "LIGHT" (Hebrew: "'owr") on Day One. On Day Four, He created "FROM-LIGHT'S" (Hebrew: "m'orowt"), things formed from the radiant energy He created on Day One! Then, almost as an afterthought, He created the round object, as well. So, God created the radiant energy FIRST, and THEN He created the alleged "sources" of that radiant energy. Therefore, NONE of the measurements taken of the known Universe have any bearing on the truth. Light is said to travel at 186,000 mps in a vacuum, and that a light-year is ...

186,000 miles/sec x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/da x 365.2422 da/yr x 1 yr = 5,869,588,250,880 miles, the distance that light can travel in one year.

Do you really think that God would wait 4.24 times that number of years for the starlight to get here from our closest star, Proxima Centauri? Do you think He would wait for 8.33 minutes for light to get here from the sun?! How about 1.28 seconds for light to get here from the moon AFTER it had come 8.33 minutes from the sun to the moon? Why would He wait when He could just create the LIGHT already en route to this earth? And, IF God created the light already en route, then what would be the value of the spectra? Whatever the absorption lines in the spectra, it would only be important IF God created the "round object" associated with the "origin" of that light beam to give off that kind of spectra! And, who cares about red shifts or blue shifts in those spectral ranges? You DO understand that it is by these means that we have deduced the ages of the known Universe, right? What if God created the LIGHT FIRST?! (And, He did!) Might as well throw cosmology and cosmogony out the window!

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've brought up a lot of good questions here.   Would you like to focus on population genetics and how Darwin's four points are tested and examined in a mathematical context?    Information theory and things like the Hardy-Weinberg equation are very useful to scientists studying biological evolution.  

Or perhaps you'd like to talk about how natural selection determines the pace of evolution in individual populations and environments?   I like where you're going.   Let me know what you think.

No equation is any better than the physical reality it is supposed to explain. THAT'S what true mathematics is! There's no sense doing the numbers, for instance, if you don't know the UNITS! Math was created to be a tool to explain the world around us and to make predictions about that world. As we say in computer-speak, "garbage in, garbage out!"

When I was taking my first course in Calculus, my professor said, "Welcome to your first course in TRUE mathematics!"

Saying "2 x 3 = 6" is just the bare basics of the computation of mathematics, but REAL math is using that basic computation to inform someone, for example, that a plot of ground, 2 miles wide by 3 miles long, is 6 square miles of area.

In grade school, everyone groans when they see a word problem on a math class test. But, THAT is what math is for! It was developed to make sense of our world!

Anyone can take an equation, like the Hardy-Weinberg equation, and work through the numbers to come up with an answer. BUT, does it, in fact, describe what is actually going on in God's World? If it does not, then working through the numbers to come up with an answer was WASTED EFFORT!

"There are 5 assumptions that are made for the HW equation to remain stable:

No mutation. No new alleles are generated by mutation, nor are genes duplicated or deleted.

Random mating. Organisms mate randomly with each other, with no preference for particular genotypes.

No gene flow. Neither individuals nor their gametes (e.g., windborne pollen) enter or exit the population.

Very large population size. The population should be effectively infinite in size.

No natural selection. All alleles confer equal fitness (make organisms equally likely to survive and reproduce)." - www.KhanAcademy.org

So, the REAL equation involves the missing assumption or assumptions that throw this equation out of equilibrium. Usually this involves differentiation or summations or integrals, but often a computer program will do, which may be done in a sophisticated spread sheet program.

However, the creationist will know that while there are variations within kinds, there are NOT variations between kinds!

Anyway, this has gone on long enough, and my post is WAY too long. I'll stop there for now.
 

[Retrobyter]

15 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

This speaks of the omnipresence of God.

(Psalms 139:7)  Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
(Psalms 139:8)  If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
(Psalms 139:9)  If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
(Psalms 139:10)  even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.
(Psalms 139:11)  If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,”
(Psalms 139:12)  even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

Shalom, Saved.One.by.Grace.

It also shows us that God didn't NEED light before the Creation account. God didn't MAKE the light, either, until He began the Creation of Genesis 1:1-2:3!

You're not letting the simplicity of God's account of Creation come through.

Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said,

"Let there be light":

and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light "Day," and the darkness he called "Night." And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, what was time like, since there was no "day" or "night" before verse 3? What could any of His alleged "previous Creation" see, since there was no "light" by which to see?

15 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

You've shown me nothing except that scripture can be taken out of context.

Well, one must first know what a proof is before one can recognize that a proof has been shown, and NOTHING I've given you has been taken out of context! May I make a suggestion? Look up the word "proof" and then study a geometry text book to see how proofs are made and used to further one's knowledge of a system. Then, go back and look at what I gave you earlier. There are two sorts of general proofs by which man determines truths: Deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning. See if you can figure out which one I used.

15 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

This shows you don't understand the Gap Theory. What is spoken after Genesis 1:3 has to do with the restoration of the Earth after God's Judgement. What the fallen elohim were doing on the Earth, it's not clearly known but it did cause a Satanic Flood (aka LF). Many believer's in the Gap Theory also believe in a 7 day restoration as stated after Genesis 1:3.

Sorry, but each verse links to the next! The summary is given in Genesis 1:1, and within that summary, He starts to talk about what would be the "earth," but in verse 2, it isn't the earth yet because it is  formless and void of life and "darkness" was upon the face of the deep. Then in verse 3 God dispells the darkness with "LIGHT!" Then, in verse 4, He makes a clear division between the "darkness" and the "light!" Then, in verse 5, He goes on to call that "darkness" and that "light," "night" and "day," respectively. And He concludes with "there was evening" (a change from light to darkness) "and there was morning" (a change from darkness to light), "DAY ONE!"

In this ONE paragraph you wrote, you've introduced MUCH that is not in the text! "God's Judgment," "the fallen elohim," that "there WAS an earth upon which they were doing something," and a "Satanic Flood (aka LF)!" NONE of this is supported by the facts of Genesis 1!

Hear this well! THIS IS READING INTO THE TEXT SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THERE! It's called "EISEGESIS" and it is fundamentally WRONG in the interpretation of Scripture! Furthermore, you won't find this ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE!

15 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Jeremiah 4 does not add to our understanding of Genesis 1:1-3. Your comment above is just more smoke and mirrors to try and explain things with limited Biblical understanding.

That's fine. I threw that in because others have used it in their arguments in the past. So, tell me, where do YOU find all this nonsense?! It's not in the Bible unless you somehow conjure it up with your imagination!