Could God Have Used Evolution?

Hi Marcia!

I'm just getting over DHK suggesting I have no faith and am an athiest because I supported a consept I don't personally agree with. So give me a moment to compose myself.

(Just had a cup of tea. Very nice earl grey..... picking up my bad guy mask.... putting on my bad guy cape......Ok ok I think I'm ready)

Even agnostics can be hairbrained!!!! I mean an agnostic isn't even sure what they believe. They just say "I don't know!" So there.

 

Except that God used the terms "evening and morning" for each day before the sun and moon were created. So there were days - it shows that created time is not dependent on the sun and moon but on God's directives.

 

God's directives? Now he's writing operator manuals?

Jk of course.

A day by definition is reliant on the rotation of the earth. An intrinsic impossibility to suggest day and night or evening and morning without the sun or the rotation of the earth. Unless you propose perpetual dusk or dawn which of course could not be considered day and night.

 

I like the humor. :laugh:

You said something about Denton being a creationist and fundamentalist or something and I was pointing out he's atheist/agnostic. He is a scientist. So why wouldn't you look at his book? When even atheist scientists question evolutionary theory (and he's not the only one), there is reason to pause and consider that creationists and Genesis might be correct.

 

There are Hebrew words God could have used if he wanted to let us know that the 6 days were long periods of time. This article goes into that. Excerpt below.

When you see all the other words God could have used if the days had been long periods of time, I think this represents one of the strongest cases for the meaning of "day" in Gen. 1 as a literal "day."

 

"Directive" in the sense that God ordains time, how the world functions, etc.

The earth could rotate without the sun and moon. Morning and evening before the sun and moon were not defined by that as yet but they still existed. God is able to create a period of time (24 hour day) without the sun and moon. Clearly, this was unusual but certainly possible. After all, it was creation, an unusual event.

 

The questions at the end of my post were meant to be rhetorical not personal. Because they weren't taken that way, I have gone back and edited my post. I did not intend to question your salvation.

 

Actually I'm very interested in his book. And I will pick it up after I'm done with my study of christian history and how the bible was put together and a few more topics. I'll locate it on amazon and add it to my favorites.

Actually I've enjoyed this book by RC Sproul "Not a Chance" But don't let anyone else on the board know they may get the wrong idea about me.

 

Thanks. It wasn't entirely necissary because I'm just messing around. But I am a believer and do hold to the creation event though I adamantly defend the opposing position here.

 

From the NET Bible online:

Underlining is mine.

 

Good!

Mum's the word!

 

The problem with all of these and even the day eon debate is that if it is God explaining through an out line or principle the word yom would be taken on a principle not on an exact timespan. A day is necissarily governed by the moving of the heavenly bodies. To say it was twenty four hours because God initially intended it to be that way would not make since because he would then have created the starts and sun first in order to establish a day. He doesn't do this he creates them on the 4th day. If the creation account is to be taken literally the earth would be older than the sun or the stars but this is not correct when we look at objects that have been knocked sunward from the Oord field.

 

The problem with what you say is that there is no evidence it is an "outline" of anything. God could have just said that He created the light, dark, oceans, land, vegetation, animals, etc. with no word about the time. But He didn't. Not only did He say "day" but he used "evening and morning" and gave numbers to the days. Then He repeats it in Exodus!

The earth is only 4 days older than the sun and moon. God did not create the sun and moon first so that they would not have primacy in the account - God does. And it also shows that God determines/creates time, not the sun and moon. There's always a point to what God says - it's not just a narrative with no meaning.

 

We judge the dates of things, but we use our own measurements to do so. Who says God had to make everything look brand new? He could have created the Grand Canyon just like it is... and then we come along and try to explain it away. The bible tells us what He made, but it does not specify that everything started out as a baby or seedling. Adam started as a grown man, so why not a weathered Earth?

Nowhere in the bible are we told that God shorteded the length of a day. He created them, and they have continued since that time. Anything beyond that does not come from His word.

I used to be an evolutionary Christian, but I was very wrong. God finally got it through my head. You can't straddle the fence on this one... either God did what He said, or you call Him a liar.

 

I don't think I have ever called God a liar, nor would I even consider such a label, even for those who think otherwise on the process used by God to bring about humankind and the universe.

It is like defining the flood of Noah's time as being universal or local. Theolgians differed on this one, but we are never accused on either side of making God a liar. This would also include the Israelites crossing of either the Red Sea or the Reed Sea, the more likely site. The sea is not important; the event is.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. When did the dinosaur appear on earth and in what time span? We have archeological proof in Alberta, Canada that they did exist, yet the Bible does not mention them. One example of extra-biblical history.

 

And at 32 pages this thread needs to be closed.
You may start another if you so desire.