Is evolution biblical or even scientific?

[Curtis]

Hello Curtis.

You caught my attention with your post, though I am not sure about the translation of the tenth line from this first chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 1:10 (KJV)
And God called the dry land Earth...

In the first section of this line, the Hebrew has been translated as 'the dry land Earth'. The Hebrew does not seem to have
the Hebrew word for 'earth' in the text. For some unknown reason, some translations seem to have inserted two words
'land' and 'earth' into their translations. The Hebrew text only has the one word, Strongs H776, which means 'land' and does
not have an additional word for 'earth'.

Even the NIV translation inserts an additional word also, but does not use the word 'earth'.

Genesis 1:10 (NIV)
10 God called the dry 'ground' land...

The reason that the translations may be incorrect, is that the ancient Hebrew text only had the one word
for 'land'. The Hebrew text was not saying what the translations of the text propose.

The correct translation would be as follows.

Genesis 1:10 (DHC)
God called the dry land and the gathering together of the waters he called seas...

Meaning God called (spoke) the dry land into existence and the gathering waters he called seas, e.t.c,.

Well, that's why we have a Hebrew, and Greek concordances. I can not read either of these so I am at the mercy of people smarter than me in these areas.
I mostly use a Hebrew concordance called "The Complete Word Study" and it is very extensive in it translations of just about any word in the Bible.
It says this word is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament and it refers to either the "whole earth", or just "earth".

Strong concordance also translate it to mean.

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Most Bible translators use the word "earth". I know the NIV, NiRV, and maybe another use the word "land"
It still makes no difference if God called the dry land land, or earth.

 

[KingJ]

Is evolution biblical or even scientific?.

I was just thinking today how if we were forced to remove God from the equation, evolution is the best hypothesis. That does not automatically translate into it being a good one.

That is why discussion of evolution on a Christian site needs to center around the TE's belief. Claims and statements by evolutionist never consider God, so why do believers consider their 'best' claims that are borderline ridiculous? No sane / honest person / scientist finds a fossil and thinks of it as an evolved ancestor.

 

[Dovegiven]

Brother, there are a lot more than what I presented here. Probably one of most striking pieces of evidence is found in the New Testament in the Book of Hebrews.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

When God originally created the earth he did not use any type of existing "materiel" as we see in Genesis 1:2. God does not create things out of nothing, he uses a substance called "faith"
"Faith is the "substance" of things hoped for......" (Heb 11:1)

Might God have beat the best of earth's scientists to the punch by revealing the existence of atoms, and other substances and energies used to supply the creation? His spoken words did the building of things seen using things unseen.

 

[Dovegiven]

I was just thinking today how if we were forced to remove God from the equation, evolution is the best hypothesis. That does not automatically translate into it being a good one.

That is why discussion of evolution on a Christian site needs to center around the TE's belief. Claims and statements by evolutionist never consider God, so why do believers consider their 'best' claims that are borderline ridiculous? No sane / honest person / scientist finds a fossil and thinks of it as an evolved ancestor.

I spent decades working alongside university and government scientists who were far removed from any notion of religion, oblivious of God. Probably out of a few hundred over 35 years, only two dared mention anything remotely concerning the Bible to me, other than cursing in Jesus' or God's name. More touched lightly in the area of "social gospel", human relationships/morality. Their god is those fossils, an apparent conformity in a geologic stratum, or anything else at all that will comfort them that all of existence is a big random experience in which randomness has been subject to conformity (oxymoron there). Their religion is evolution, which is frustrating for them, since the original "theory" (actually only an hypothesis) no longer exists, replaced by disturbing advances in real science. Instead of reconciling reason and logic concerning the evidences, they alter their religion's doctrines, redefining "science" and the "science method". Religious people who consider deity do the same things, changing their perception of "god" by presenting other doctrines foreign to their original deity, in response to unexplained experiences within their religions. Thus, Hindus have added new gods and goddesses over the millennia to explain disconformities of life, resulting in many thousands of deities. There's no difference between them and evolutionists.

 

[WaterRock]

I was just thinking today how if we were forced to remove God from the equation, evolution is the best hypothesis. That does not automatically translate into it being a good one.

Since creation is the act by which something that never existed before is made or produced, can you give another hypothesis for the origin of the universe other than Creationism or Evolution?

 

[KingJ]

Since creation is the act by which something that never existed before is made or produced, can you give another hypothesis for the origin of the universe other than Creationism or Evolution?

Evolution has been accepted by the smartest atheistic philosophers for a traceable 2 600 years / back to Greece 600bc. I am sure they have pushed their imaginations to the maximum and would have a replacement if there was. Thoughts of anything other then a Creator God being behind our universe has not entered my mind. Even when unsaved. It should be dead obvious that a Creator not limited by our laws of physics is needed. As Isaac Newton wisely stated:''He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”

 

[WaterRock]

Evolution has been accepted by the smartest atheistic philosophers for a traceable 2 600 years / back to Greece 600bc.

Seems like in that amount of time they could have figured out how non-living matter spontaneously changed into living matter. The 120 Principle clearly defines how living matter can spontaneously change into non living matter.

I am sure they have pushed their imaginations to the maximum and would have a replacement if there was.

The truth is obtain from principled reason. [Isaiah 1:18]

It should be dead obvious that a Creator not limited by our laws of physics is needed.

LOL As Isaac Newton stated, "energy & matter can not be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms" So as the universe is composed of matter, both without and without mass, then it should be obvious to the living that the LORD has numbered their days from the beginning.

 

[Dovegiven]

Since creation is the act by which something that never existed before is made or produced, can you give another hypothesis for the origin of the universe other than Creationism or Evolution?

There can't possibly be another. God's words did it all. They are powerful. His words caused what he wanted to exist.
I can comprehend that God spoke some of his own energy of being to change into matter. The matter is winding down, the energy returning to God. At the end he will roll what remains up like a scroll, then start it all over again, though with no possibility of sin to upset the new earth and new heavens.

The real issue of interest to God is whether men believe his words. He has left everything left up to us to believe by faith. All who refuse to believe God about anything are without excuse, subject to eternal damnation. A good approach is to accept all his words as meant to be believed. Once a scientist does that, God opens his spiritual eyes to realize how the natural world had to come about, step by step. Creation science is the only explanation that makes sense, and the Genesis flood explains geology, paleontology, etc. far better than atheistic scoffers try to do.

 

[WaterRock]

There can't possibly be another.

Really? If not possible then if a good tree can only produce good fruit, and cannot produce an evil fruit, then how could God, an eternal tree possibly create a mortal fruit?

As you know the eternal has no beginning nor end of existence, it always was, is and will always be, neither does it change forms since to begin a new form would be to end the old one. Wherefore that which is mortal has a finite life process, meaning it has a beginning and end? Therefore since the universe had a beginning, it therefore must also have an end too right?

In the first days, it is written that the LORD God told male and female that they could eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil, lest they die in the day that eat thereof. The serpent said that surely they would not die, but rather be as Gods, the ones who said "let us make man in our image after our likeness". However, neither the serpent nor the male and female died on the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Moreover, the scriptures represent that a rod was given unto Moses which when cast down upon the ground became a serpent. Was that a different serpent or the original serpent?

Thus, in the beginning God, or rather Elohim created the heaven and the earth according to Genesis 1:1. In the Book of the Preacher it says in Chapter 1, verse 1-2, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;"

Thus, in the NT in Matthew, Luke and Mark one will find it is written that "heaven and the earth shall pass away." Since the universe is a body of matter, both without mass and with mass, and it is written that which is seen [matter with mass] was made by that which is not seen [matter without mass] then too God, who is a Spirit, who is in heaven, or the expanse of space above the earth according to verses like Matthew 15:13, Luke 11:13, Matthew 6:9.

 

[Tenshi - George Martin]

I don't believe we can take Genesis word for word, please remember that Genesis states that God created light on the first day 'Genesis 1:3', however, we know that our light comes from the Sun, but he did not create the Sun and the Moon until the third day 'Genesis 1:14'. Let us not also forget that as the Earth orbits the Sun, creating the Sun after the Earth would mean the Earth would be sucked straight into the Sun as it would have no momentum. I think the Genesis book came through as a misunderstanding and a failure of translation by the human who wrote it (I'm actually not sure who wrote Genesis). Before people go arguing that the Earth is flat, let us not forget that there was a super lunar eclipse just recently, which is explained only by a round Earth blocking out the light of the Sun from the Moon.

Taking this into consideration, I think a lack of human understanding at the time the Genesis book was written led to an error in translation and a failure to convey God's word effectively, there is no reason a beautiful and omni benevolent God wouldn't have created the process of evolution or formed the Earth in the way that science describes in order to lead us to the day we live in. Why would an infinitely smart and beautiful God not have the skill and efficacy to make something so intricately and beautifully that everything led up to this, the stars, the sun, the moon. I would argue that God is capable of science. Further still, if God created us in his own image 'Genesis 1:27' and we are pursuing the knowledge of God himself (science) would that not be the same as eating from the tree of Knowledge? 'Genesis 3:6'. Perhaps we have not been misinterpreting this entire time, and that, we ourselves are God, warning ourselves not to pursue the Wisdom of Science, God's Wisdom. Let us not forget the details, God made us in his image, God warned us not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but we did, and disaster has struck has it not? The Earth is dying, our 'garden of Eden', our planet is dying because of our hunger for wisdom. The atom bomb which has killed millions, war, every year that we advance in science more and more die at its hands. Perhaps we are Adam and Eve and we are still taking our first bite of that apple, slowly. If we were to stretch out the timescale from 6 days to the scientific 13.7 billion years that led to this point (thats what science suggests, I'm not saying that it IS true). Then on that scale, the amount of time we've spent pursuing science (about 3000 years) if we divide that by the supposed age of the universe (by carbon dating) 13.7 billion / 3000 = 4.56 million we then take that and divive 6 days by that to give us the amount of time we have been eating the apple for according to the bible which come out at 1.32x10^-6 days which if you convert it to seconds comes out at 0.114048 Seconds. If you were to take the bible's idea of the creation of the Earth and stretch it to the length of the scientific explanation of the Earth, we have been eating that apple for 0.1 seconds. Our teeth are just starting to dig in. Something to think about. Again this is just some maths and a hypothesis. Let that sink in though, perhaps we've been thinking about it all wrong this whole time. I came up with all of this on the spot, didn't steal it from anywhere. Just some simple maths and comparison.

 

[Shutterbug]

Genesis was never meant to be a Play-by-Play, Colour Commentary, of Creation. It declares that the light, the heavenly bodies, our Earth and all life on it, our emotions, etc., they were all created by God be speaking them into existence in an orderly manner.

The reason that evolutionists cannot locate the missing Link is because Man is nothing like the other animals. Man shares some common elements, but is completely above the rest. Name another animal which speaks and tries to rationalize the existence of a higher power governing our world. You won't find a single animal anywhere other than Man.

Science claims that the evolution of a species requires millions of years. The reality is only one generation is required, the species must be able to reproduce, and the change has to be predictably repeatable if one desires consistency. Otherwise, genetics are Ad Hoc and the plant which begins as a yellow Daisy this year may be a completely different colour the next, or even a completely different flower. Gardners don't subscribe to it, nor do animal breeders.

 

[Dovegiven]

Really? If not possible then if a good tree can only produce good fruit, and cannot produce an evil fruit, then how could God, an eternal tree possibly create a mortal fruit?

As you know the eternal has no beginning nor end of existence, it always was, is and will always be, neither does it change forms since to begin a new form would be to end the old one. Wherefore that which is mortal has a finite life process, meaning it has a beginning and end? Therefore since the universe had a beginning, it therefore must also have an end too right?

In the first days, it is written that the LORD God told male and female that they could eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil, lest they die in the day that eat thereof. The serpent said that surely they would not die, but rather be as Gods, the ones who said "let us make man in our image after our likeness". However, neither the serpent nor the male and female died on the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Moreover, the scriptures represent that a rod was given unto Moses which when cast down upon the ground became a serpent. Was that a different serpent or the original serpent?

Thus, in the beginning God, or rather Elohim created the heaven and the earth according to Genesis 1:1. In the Book of the Preacher it says in Chapter 1, verse 1-2, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;"

Thus, in the NT in Matthew, Luke and Mark one will find it is written that "heaven and the earth shall pass away." Since the universe is a body of matter, both without mass and with mass, and it is written that which is seen [matter with mass] was made by that which is not seen [matter without mass] then too God, who is a Spirit, who is in heaven, or the expanse of space above the earth according to verses like Matthew 15:13, Luke 11:13, Matthew 6:9.

Every tree and it's fruit created by God was declared by God to be "good". Genesis 1:12 (KJV) 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.

Even the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and it's fruit then was good. The effects of the fruit of it then had to be good, not evil. Left alone no person could be affected. The issue in the Garden was simple belief and obedience towards God's commandment, which put something good he created off limits to Adam and Eve. Is molten lava evil? An evil application of it would be to offer it to a thirsty person who would drink anything rather than die of thirst.

The two trees ruled over physical and spiritual life and death. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ruled over spiritual life and death. Choosing to obtain anything God restricts is in itself evil. When Adam chose to let that happen, he and Eve and all his offspring were made subject to the affects of evil knowledge. Only God can know evil yet not perform evil. Those thoughts are best taught to a person one at a time as needed, beginning as a baby. But due to disobedience of obtaining all knowledge of evil at once without Christ in them, it didn't take long until God had to define sins and proclaim the consequences through Moses. The action of man in the Garden began the wild growth of uncontrolled sin, resulting in complete judgment of sin in the flood, then later by giving the law of sin and death through Moses.

The Tree of Life awarded immortal flesh life, immunity from physical death. Since there was no evil with that, it wasn't excluded along with the other tree. But once man fell into spiritual sin, man had to be separated from that tree lest he eat of it and live forever in the flesh as a lost soul. What a miserable world far more wicked than ever known!

So, Adam did eventually die physically, but died spiritually the day he believed the lie of Satan. That's the way it was and still is. We all must die, not having access to that one tree of life. Still, if we choose to follow Satan's words, rejecting God's, we will inherit eternal death. The solution? The gospel of Christ. Believe God, do his words. Things not seen responded to God's words, making up a creation full of things seen, and things not seen like hope.

 

[KingJ]

I don't believe we can take Genesis word for word, please remember that Genesis states that God created light on the first day 'Genesis 1:3', however, we know that our light comes from the Sun, but he did not create the Sun and the Moon until the third day 'Genesis 1:14'. Let us not also forget that as the Earth orbits the Sun, creating the Sun after the Earth would mean the Earth would be sucked straight into the Sun as it would have no momentum. I think the Genesis book came through as a misunderstanding and a failure of translation by the human who wrote it (I'm actually not sure who wrote Genesis). Before people go arguing that the Earth is flat, let us not forget that there was a super lunar eclipse just recently, which is explained only by a round Earth blocking out the light of the Sun from the Moon.

Genesis records creation, fall of man, Noah, tower of Babel, Abraham, fall of Sodom and the blessing on Jacob's descendants. To suggest we not take it word for word is literal heresy.

 

[Dovegiven]

Most of us here are

I don't believe we can take Genesis word for word, /QUOTE]

Most of us here are not among your "we". The Bible is for believers of God, not unbelievers.

Jesus and apostles who contributed their holy letters, made direct references to those scriptures, making it clear the New Testament supports the literal words of Genesis. I believe Jesus knew
what it was about. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Ophel]

I don't believe we can take Genesis word for word, please remember that Genesis states that God created light on the first day 'Genesis 1:3', however, we know that our light comes from the Sun, but he did not create the Sun and the Moon until the third day 'Genesis 1:14'. Let us not also forget that as the Earth orbits the Sun, creating the Sun after the Earth would mean the Earth would be sucked straight into the Sun as it would have no momentum. I think the Genesis book came through as a misunderstanding and a failure of translation by the human who wrote it (I'm actually not sure who wrote Genesis). Before people go arguing that the Earth is flat, let us not forget that there was a super lunar eclipse just recently, which is explained only by a round Earth blocking out the light of the Sun from the Moon.

Taking this into consideration, I think a lack of human understanding at the time the Genesis book was written led to an error in translation and a failure to convey God's word effectively, there is no reason a beautiful and omni benevolent God wouldn't have created the process of evolution or formed the Earth in the way that science describes in order to lead us to the day we live in. Why would an infinitely smart and beautiful God not have the skill and efficacy to make something so intricately and beautifully that everything led up to this, the stars, the sun, the moon. I would argue that God is capable of science. Further still, if God created us in his own image 'Genesis 1:27' and we are pursuing the knowledge of God himself (science) would that not be the same as eating from the tree of Knowledge? 'Genesis 3:6'. Perhaps we have not been misinterpreting this entire time, and that, we ourselves are God, warning ourselves not to pursue the Wisdom of Science, God's Wisdom. Let us not forget the details, God made us in his image, God warned us not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but we did, and disaster has struck has it not? The Earth is dying, our 'garden of Eden', our planet is dying because of our hunger for wisdom. The atom bomb which has killed millions, war, every year that we advance in science more and more die at its hands. Perhaps we are Adam and Eve and we are still taking our first bite of that apple, slowly. If we were to stretch out the timescale from 6 days to the scientific 13.7 billion years that led to this point (thats what science suggests, I'm not saying that it IS true). Then on that scale, the amount of time we've spent pursuing science (about 3000 years) if we divide that by the supposed age of the universe (by carbon dating) 13.7 billion / 3000 = 4.56 million we then take that and divive 6 days by that to give us the amount of time we have been eating the apple for according to the bible which come out at 1.32x10^-6 days which if you convert it to seconds comes out at 0.114048 Seconds. If you were to take the bible's idea of the creation of the Earth and stretch it to the length of the scientific explanation of the Earth, we have been eating that apple for 0.1 seconds. Our teeth are just starting to dig in. Something to think about. Again this is just some maths and a hypothesis. Let that sink in though, perhaps we've been thinking about it all wrong this whole time. I came up with all of this on the spot, didn't steal it from anywhere. Just some simple maths and comparison.

We can take Genesis word for word.

God is fully capable to ensure that His message about the Creation of the planet and what exists on it is fully detailed, according to what He deems we should know. God "capable of science"? God IS the CHIEF SCIENTIST!

"We ourselves are God"? Where do you get that?

Our planet is in disarray because of sin.

The human mind can be a dangerous thing. It opposes God.

Romans 8:6-9
So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace. 7 For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. 8 That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God.

9 But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)


.
.

 

[Tenshi - George Martin]

God didn't write Genesis, the bible isn't written by God, it is written by humans. God didn't magically manifest the bible into existence. As Christianity teaches us (as well as Islam AND Judaism), God portrayed his will through prophets, with which he spoke. Those prophets are humans, and humans are inherently flawed. God's language would be above and beyond that of human understanding, and thus errors in translation can occur. There is a reason the books are named after humans, and that is because that is the human they are written by, I'm sure a devout Christian would know at least that much. For example, Matthew is written by Matthew the apostle.

 

[Ophel]

God didn't write Genesis, the bible isn't written by God, it is written by humans. God didn't magically manifest the bible into existence. As Christianity teaches us (as well as Islam AND Judaism), God portrayed his will through prophets, with which he spoke. Those prophets are humans, and humans are inherently flawed. God's language would be above and beyond that of human understanding, and thus errors in translation can occur. There is a reason the books are named after humans, and that is because that is the human they are written by, I'm sure a devout Christian would know at least that much. For example, Matthew is written by Matthew the apostle.

The bible is God's inerrant word. Start from that perfect premise and you're cooking with gas! Reject that truth and...well...you're pretty much hopeless. Your proverbial goose is cooked!


.

 

[Shutterbug]

God didn't write Genesis, the bible isn't written by God, it is written by humans. God didn't magically manifest the bible into existence. As Christianity teaches us (as well as Islam AND Judaism), God portrayed his will through prophets, with which he spoke. Those prophets are humans, and humans are inherently flawed. God's language would be above and beyond that of human understanding, and thus errors in translation can occur. There is a reason the books are named after humans, and that is because that is the human they are written by, I'm sure a devout Christian would know at least that much. For example, Matthew is written by Matthew the apostle.

Aye, it is people who put words to pen and papyrus for others to read. Question: if a secretary is instructed by her boss to type a memo to the troops on his behalf, do the words and intent of the memo have any less meaning?

 

[dh charles]

Aye, it is people who put words to pen and papyrus for others to read. Question: if a secretary is instructed by her boss to type a memo to the troops on his behalf, do the words and intent of the memo have any less meaning?

Many parts of the Bible are indeed above human understanding. So much that if you understand you don't understand.

 

[Ophel]

Many parts of the Bible are indeed above human understanding. So much that if you understand you don't understand.

Psalm 119:130
The teaching of your word gives light,
so even the simple can understand.

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we live in fellowship with the true God because we live in fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life.


.