Questions for evolution believers

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

God said, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.  Who should I believe?

You've already seen that the text itself says that it's not a literal account.   So perhaps you should decide to believe God, instead of men.

God never said it was a global flood.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

That looks pretty inclusive to me.

If God meant the world, He would have said so.   But he uses "land" (eretz) instead of "world" (tebel).    Why don't you just accept it His way?

(claims that mountain tops have fossils)

I've been up in the Cascades.    No fossils. 

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Wait.... there are fossils on the mountain peaks but there are fossils on mountain peaks? 

I think we've found your problem.   Try reading it a word at a time.

God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree.   Adam eats but lives on physically for many years after.   Which is how we know it was a spiritual death and not a physical death.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

So Paul lied?

No, but some people didn't like it God's way, and tried to convert it to a physical death.   For a Christian, you certainly deny much of the Scriptures in deference to your primary religion; YE creationism.   Why not just take it God's way? 

The serpent was a biblical literalist, and he pretended that God was speaking of a physical death when in fact God was speaking of a spiritual death instead.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, God said he would surely die, and on that day his death was assured.

Let's see how your revision compares to the original...

Genesis 2:17 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.

Sorry, I'll take it God's way, not yours.   You used God's word out of context, just as someone did then.

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've already seen that the text itself says that it's not a literal account.   So perhaps you should decide to believe God, instead of men.

God never said it was a global flood.

I've never seen anything of the kind.  When the Bible says "the evening and the morning were the fifth day," I don't believe you will find a Hebrew scholar who would read that as anything different than a single day.  The Bible doesn't say what you want it to say, so you PRETEND it does.

God said that everything which had the breath of life was killed.  You say otherwise.  God's right, you're wrong.  A global flood invalidates evolution, which you value far more than the word of God.  So you attack God's word to validate your first love; evolution.  That is your religion.  God is secondary.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I've been up in the Cascades.    No fossils. 

Fossils in the Himalayas.  Science explanation of fossils in mountain peaks.

 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. 

Genesis 2:17 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.

Adam eats but lives on physically for many years after.

In the day, not on the day, and it says surely die, not immediately die.

Also in Chapter three, Adam receives his death sentence.

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.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The serpent was a biblical literalist, and he pretended that God was speaking of a physical death when in fact God was speaking of a spiritual death instead.  

The devil did then as he does now; perverts the Bible text to mean what he wants it to mean while ignoring the obvious, straightforward wording of the text.  The serpent is alive and very active in this world.  His lies deceive many.

[The Barbarian]

You've already seen that the text itself says that it's not a literal account. 

15 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I've never seen anything of the kind. 

Maybe you should read it, then.    As you know, there can be no morning or evening without a sun to have them.   That's what the words mean.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I don't believe you will find a Hebrew scholar who would read that as anything different than a single day.

• Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7).
• J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.”
• Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding  the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
• Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.”
• Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

18 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

In the day, not on the day, and it says surely die, not immediately die.

Well, let's take a look again...

Genesis 2:17 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.

God tells Adam that he will die in the day that he eats from the tree.   But Adam eats from the tree and lives on physically for many years.   On the other hand, he died spiritually in the day he ate from three as God told him, and was estranged from God immediately.    If God is truthful, that death is not a physical one.

Adam was not created immortal.   In fact, God expresses concern that he might become so, and banishes him from the garden.

Genesis 3:22 ²² And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This is the word of God.  Accept it and believe that, not the revisions men gave you.

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

God said that everything which had the breath of life was killed.

In the land, but not in the world.    You say otherwise.   God is right and you are wrong.

28 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

A global flood invalidates evolution,

No, that's wrong, too.   Evolution would work exactly the way we see it working today regardless of a flood.   Indeed, creationists, concerned that the Ark could not have held all species for a year, have supposed a kind of superhyperevolution that produced all of today's species from a few supposed "kinds" on the Ark in just a few thousand years.    New species popping up monthly for no apparent reason.   And nobody then thought it worth mentioning.    No, your new invention of a global flood produces more problems for YE creationism.  

33 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The devil did then as he does now; perverts the Bible text to mean what he wants it to mean while ignoring the obvious, straightforward wording of the text.

And YE creationists unwittingly assist him.    Please read the Bible, and accept it God's way, not your own.

 

[RV_Wizard]

If the Bible says one thing and an atheist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a preacher claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a Cardinal claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a teacher claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a geologist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a biologist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and your mother claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and your president claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

Jesus believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Do you?  John 3:34  For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him..

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

If the Bible says one thing and an atheist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a preacher claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a Cardinal claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a teacher claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a geologist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and a biologist claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and your mother claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

If the Bible says one thing and your president claims to the contrary, which do you believe?

Jesus believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Do you?  John 3:34  For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him..

Here is one more question for you to ponder:

If translators say one thing and the original language says another, which do you believe?

And it HAS BEEN PROVEN that Gen 1:2 says differently than all the English translations.  

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If translators say one thing and the original language says another, which do you believe?

And it HAS BEEN PROVEN that Gen 1:2 says differently than all the English translations.  

Given that we don't speak the original language and ALL words in Hebrew need to be interpreted into our language, why should we give any more credence to your interpretation than to all the others?  The amount of Scripture that has to be wrong for your chosen interpretation to be right precludes any further consideration of it.

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Given that we don't speak the original language and ALL words in Hebrew need to be interpreted into our language, why should we give any more credence to your interpretation than to all the others?

How about just considering the MOST ACCURATE translation from Hebrew?  The Septuagint, written around 300 BC by scholars who spoke Koine Greek, which has been a dead language for a very long time.

This is how the LXX translates Gen 1:2 - BUT the earth was chaotic and empty.

So, how do you square THAT with original creation?  I'd love to see your explanation

ANd I won't accept the answer that God is a messy creator.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The amount of Scripture that has to be wrong for your chosen interpretation to be right precludes any further consideration of it.

In fact, you've never yet shown ANY Scripture that is in contradiction with the earth becoming an uninhabitable wasteland.

I know you keep going to Ex 20:11, but since it has been explained clearly to you, there is no need to repeat.  If Moses had used "bara" instead of "asah" there, then you would have a point.  But you don't, because he used "asah".  

But I'd be very interested in any other verse that you think is compromised by my understanding of Ten 1:2.

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

In fact, you've never yet shown ANY Scripture that is in contradiction with the earth becoming an uninhabitable wasteland.

I did.  You just don't like it.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I know you keep going to Ex 20:11, but since it has been explained clearly to you, there is no need to repeat.  

How about Exodus 31:17? "It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”

 

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

In fact, you've never yet shown ANY Scripture that is in contradiction with the earth becoming an uninhabitable wasteland.

I did.

You only thought you did.  The only verse you came up with was Ex 20:11, and since Moses didn't use the word for creation from Gen 1:1 (bara) but instead used "asah", we know that verse wasn't referring to original creation.  Rather, the restoration.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You just don't like it.

You have no idea what I like or dislike.  I feel sorry for such closed minded Christians who refuse to face obvious facts.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How about Exodus 31:17? "It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”

Did you bother checking out the interlinear for the word "made"?  Probably not, since that would be the same fact as Ex 20:11.

Anyway, the Hebrew word is 'asah', which means to make or create something OUT OF EXISTING MATERIALS.  I am perplexed as to WHY you have been so very stubborn and refuse to accept the facts.  

When God created (bara) the heavens and earth, He did so OUT OF NOTHING.  We know that from Psa 33:6 and 9.  God spoke, and everything existed.  Poof!  Just like that.

You STILL haven't shown any verse that is compromised by understanding that Genesis 1 is about God restoring a destroyed earth.  

And you can't get around the FACT that "tohu wabohu" is used TWICE to describe a destroyed land.  So claiming that it can be used for original creation is absurd.

Then, your preferred translation is in direct contradiction to Isa 45:18, which says that God "didn't create (bara) the earth tohu".

The English translation says "God created (bara) the earth tohu".

And rather than realize the Bible cannot have any contradictions, you STILL prefer a translation that creates a contradiction.

[RV_Wizard]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And rather than realize the Bible cannot have any contradictions, you STILL prefer a translation that creates a contradiction.

The only contradiction comes from people trying to pretend that the earth was created, flourished for millions of years, then was somehow destroyed and then was reformed.... all before the creation of light, any other stars, or any other planets.  Do you know what absolute zero is?  It is the absence of any heat whatever.... and also the likelihood that your interpretation is correct.  The world before the creation of light was absolute zero and absolute darkness.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Diamonds, oil, gold, precious stones, emeralds, Jade and all of the resources man would ever need were present from the beginning.  Nothing formed over billions of years.  All things were formed by the hand of God from the beginning.  NOTHING in the Bible supports an old earth.