Featured How Do Thestic Evolutionist Chrsitians Account for man and species transformation?

No. The Lord did not create the universe in seven days. Even if you were a young earth creationist you still would not believe the Lord created the universe in seven days. You would believe the Lord created the universe six days.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to think that the "days" are literal 24 hour periods.

Thirdly, Adam was a real man and he was the first human being.

 

I'm old earth myself, and creationist.

That said, the Bible is absolutely scientifically accurate in telling us man is made from the dust of the ground. We ARE composed of the elements just as the dust is.

But far too many people get the mental image of a God that looks like an overgrown man somehow alighting on earth and making mud pies and then bringing them to life. And that isn't at all what Genesis says.

It tells us God made us out of the dust of the earth. It doesn't say how. So it doesn't eliminate the possibility of evolution. I believe there is a degree of evolution (micro) and some limited degree of macro, since there are separate species than can breed. Usually produces sterile offspring, but still breed.

If we are going to play Catholic and give history and tradition equal weight, then we can no longer believe in the sperm and egg producing a pregnancy. Nope, we have to believe men deliver tiny tiny fully formed humans into the woman's "nest" without her contributing an egg. After all, that was the historical and traditional understanding of some of Paul in the NT. "In Adam's fall we sinned all" was based on that view. Anybody want to take that on, holding to "what was taught for centuries is good enough for me?"

Now, if you want a good example of twisting yourself into knots to try to hold on to what "has always been taught" in the face of clearly visible facts, look to the RCC and the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. It seems to be a response to the discovery of the human ova.

If we let the Bible speak for itself, and don't try to superimpose ideas like "its a creation myth" OR "we are supposed to take it all as literal science. No poetry, no liturgy" then we just don't find those conflicts.

Am I made out of dirt physically? Yes indeed, science backs up the Bible or the Bible predates science accurately, take your pick. Does that mean God made mud pies to make me? No, it doesn't say that. He might have. Or He might have just spoken. Or He might have used evolution in order to prepare our bodies to have those dna codes that allow us to save lives with modern medicine.

I remember Him having a few choice words for Job regarding creation. It is enough to stick with what He has revealed to us. There is enough there for an eternity of awe and worship of Him. What He chooses not to tell us is His business.

 

Bravo!!! Well said Nodak.

 

Really??? You're sure about that?

Genesis 1, NASB
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.​

The Hebrew word translated "formed" is yatsar, which (for example) is translated "potter" in 2 Kings 19:25, and "maker" in Habakkuk 2:18, both examples of workmen, craftsmen, who form their works with their hands. This is strongly indicative of God taking a handful of dust and forming it into man, and they "breathing" (a literal breathing out of air) to give His creation life. Sorry, but the words in the Hebrew tell us exactly "how He did it."

Not "might have." Did.

Or He created those DNA codes from the beginning. Which He did.

I don't believe He has "chosen not to tell us" anything. He's told us precisely how it was done.

 

Yeshua, if you would do some more reading and research, you would find this not necessarily true.

 

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3335.htm

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=yatsar&rc=LEX&rc2=LEX+HEB&ps=10&s=References

http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=Hilasterion&rc=LEX&rc2=LEX+GRK&ps=10&s=References

 

Thanks, I do see they (both sources) appear to say the same things.... to "form or fashion" Guess I do not see the "disconnect" that you do.

 

Not seven days, six!

God did not work on the seventh day! Six days!

The church held to a literal six day creation as 24 hour periods of time for the same reason that the church believed for nearly 1500 years that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe and all the planets revolved around it.

They took bad science to the Bible and assumed the Bible supported it.

And yes many Christians who believe God used evolution also believe that Adam was a special creation of God.

Google Hugh Ross, reasons to believe.

Also Google the framework hypothesis theory of Genesis 1 and two

 

This in totally uncalled for....it nothing to do with "placing faith" that is such a red herring.

Real science should attempt to "close off anything" which might cause one to shade their conclusions. ( A practical impossibility for fallen and fallible creatures as ourselves, but to do real science, every effort should be made to account for and control any variables that we are aware of.)

 

Gonna say this....Creation occurred within six literal 24-hr. days.

God did not utilize any form of "evolution" in his creation of mankind.

The Earth is approximately (and the known Universe as well) 6,000 to 10,000years old.

"EVOLUTION"...and the empirically verifiable facts about it are indeed absolutely true.

"Evolution" does not prove that man came from monkeys...but, it does demonstrate, however, that pretty much all dogs came from a common ancestor in the canine family....

It doesn't demonstrate that reptiles miraculously evolved into birds....but it DOES demonstrate that the saltwater crocodile and the Florida Alligator have a common ancestor....
It makes the (absolutely problematic and horrifying) prospect that Bull-Sharks (who have now all but adapted perfectly to fresh water) are a truly "evolving" specie....and we have to account for them......and their ancestors were exclusively salt-water sharks, period.

There are certain facets of verifiable scientific fact, that help us to understand more fully the Scriptural teaching, and they are not to be ignored...but, don't read into the Scripture more than is there.

The Scriptures NEVER NEVER NEVER disagree with verifiable and provable "Science".....if they initially APPEAR to...then, either our understanding of Scripture, or our beliefs about the natural World are wrong, and need to be re-examined...


Phrases like: "The Bible is not a 'scientific' text"....are meaningless. superfluous and serve nothing but to obfuscate the real questions...That's a meaningless phrase. It is "historical" and it's also "scientific". It INSISTS that every statement it makes is to be taken as LITERALLY true....There's no such thing as "Theologically true, but Scientifically false" or, as some would have it on B.B...."Theologically meaningful, but not historically factual".

That's a load of meaningless crap.

For YEC's (like myself) we need to admit FULLY what facts of science serve to modify or alter our understanding of Biblical truth such that we more fully understand Scripture....But, is a "Young-Earth-Creationism" still a viable and intelligible option????.......Absolutetely it is............

But it ISN'T served by simply DENYING every scientific fact about the verifiable known Universe.

I am a Bible-Believing...Literalist...Young-Earth Creationist...who denies no KNOWN facts about "Science" that I am aware of...The Bible's account is to be taken literally...the days were 6 in toto...they were essentially 24 hrs. in duration, and EVERYTHING he stated that he created was done in that time-frame. The Bible squares PERFECTLY with "Science" neither is to be discarded. They are both (if properly understood) correct.


I also am intimately familiar with Hugh Ross's work...he also denies the Universality of the Noahcian flood...He's wrong. I like Ross, but he doesn't get it.

 

There's also no Venus in the Bible. Guess that means it doesn't exist!

Ridiculous.

All truth is God's truth.

If scientists uncover it and the Bible does not contradict it, there is no reason for Christians to reject it.

End of story.

 

thisnumberdisconnected:

Then by your reasoning, when God "knit us together" in our mother's wombs He had to make Himself very tiny, and come there with some tiny little needles and yarn.

This is where the silliness of reading our beliefs INTO the Scripture instead of letting them speak to us leads us.