Genesis Chapter 1 Does Not Contradict Provable Science?

[AronRa]

Over the last few days, I have received several messages from another anonymous internet nobody using the name, ImpressiveWebs. His primary argument has been that the Bible does not say that the rest of the stars and planets were created after the earth, and that the earth was never the only thing in the universe -according to the first chapter of Genesis. Now he wants to carry our discussion into public forum. I won't copy our whole conversation here, just the last few posts, so that everyone understands the context.

ImpressiveWebs 08/16/2010

You have to listen to me carefully here. You are not understanding what I'm telling you. I'm starting to think (and no offense here) that maybe you smoke pot or something before you type these message. I apologize if that offends you, but you are arguing against a position that I do not hold because you're misunderstanding something that I'm saying.

I never made any mention of "linguistic inconsistencies" nor did I discuss "an imperfect language" or "poor word choice" by God.

For the record: The word choice and linguistics in the Bible are of the the highest quality, and no human could make any corrections to the book of Genesis to make it more accurate.

When I used the words "perfect" and "imperfect" I was talking about verb tenses, not "imperfection of linguistics" as you seemed to assume.

Look at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_verbs#Present_perfect

You'll see that web page discusses English verbs and their tenses, one of which is "Present Perfect".

Another English verb tense is found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_verbs#Imperfect_subjunctive

It's called "Imperfect Subjunctive".

The words "perfect" and "imperfect" in relation to those verb tenses are not saying whether those tenses are "good" or "bad". They are saying what the tenses represent (past action, present action, unknown beginning, etc.)

The Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was written had only TWO verb tenses: PERFECT and IMPERFECT.

Genesis 1:1 uses the PERFECT tense; this implies that the creation of heaven and earth were complete, a past action.

Genesis 1:16 (the word "made") uses the IMPERFECT tense. That doesn't mean it's an inferior tense (as you misunderstood). The tense represents the fact that the action of "making" the sun, moon, and stars had already begun long before day 4, and could feasibly be continued into day 5. This is a fact, because the verb tense is "IMPERFECT". In other words, the beginning and and of the "making" is unknown (i.e. "imperfect").

The verb tenses used show that the Bible is 100% accurate in its description of the creation of heaven and earth and everything on it. The only way you can say that the Genesis account is not scientific is by denying these linguistic facts. And that's just not honest.

Also, there is NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that the earth is the center of the universe. I have no idea where you get this false statement from. I never said that, and neither did the Bible.

The Bible is not a science textbook. The Genesis account is NOT about "creation of the universe"; it's about preparing the earth for human habitation. That's why it doesn't discuss black holes and other complex things in space that aren't really connected to life on earth. Humans and animals and their habitation are the center of the discussion in Genesis; it has nothing to do with "creation of the universe".

Now, stop smoking pot, and go back and read my previous messages carefully and soberly. I'm not going to explain this again, because it's starting to be obvious that you have no intention of discussing things honestly, and unfortunately every single one of your arguments is a strawman.

I don't do drugs, and I have not used even one single strawman. Neither did I think you were referring to any 'inferior' tense. I understand what you're trying to say, but you happen to be wrong --about everything you believe; And of course you refuse to accept that, because you've been conditioned to embrace the interpretation you were told to assume, and you simply don't know as much about this as I do. But I will try to explain it to you again.

As I keep telling you, Genesis 1:1 illustrates that the earth is the very first thing in the heavens, and it is the obvious center of the universe as well, since everything in the cosmos is painted as peripheral to this puny world. I know you want to pretend that the Bible doesn't really say that, but it clearly does, right there in the beginning. Even in English, it is taken that the 'heavens' were created in the 'perfect' tense. However, Genesis 1:6-8 specifies that AFTER the void of the heavens was created, THEN the firmament was created, on the second day. Verses 14-19 then explain that AFTER the firmament was placed in the midst of the heavens, then the sun, moon, and stars were all created. Then AFTER they were created, they were then placed 'into' that expanse on the fourth day. It has nothing to do with linguistics, and it doesn't matter which tense of the word 'made' you're talking about, because it says the same thing either way and can't honestly be interpreted any other way, not without ignoring everything it really does say.

The reason I say that the Bible is not scientific isn't because of linguistics, but because it is the antithesis of science. It demands faith and prohibits inquiry, rewards blind gullibility and punishes analytic thinkers. It has to, because the Bible is dead wrong in ALL its depictions of the earth's nature and its relation to the rest of the universe.

We know what lies outside our atmosphere. And that proves that there is no water above where the firmament isn't, [Genesis 1:6-7] and no windows to let it drain in if there was a firmament there [Genesis 7:11]. It also proves that the veil of night cannot be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain [Psalms 104:2] or a tent, [Isaiah 40:22]. This idea is the same as that of ancient Persians, who believed the stars were sequins in the Mithra's cloak. We also know that the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse [Isaiah 48:13] because they are not "high" in the firmament, [Job 22:12]. They are so far beyond our puny world that "height" is meaningless and inapplicable. They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm [2 Esdras 15:34-35] and they couldn't be taken "down" by anything at all. We've also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either [2 Samuel 22:8] and neither does the Earth [Job 38:4-6]. There are no pillars [1 Samuel 2:8] holding the Earth above the deep, [Genesis 1:2] because there is no deep. Outer space is not full of water!

We also know what lies outside our gravitational field. And that proves that you can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun to measure them [Genesis 1:13-14] against an Earth which constantly moves [Psalms 104:5]. We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon, [Amos 8:9] and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky [Joshua 10:12-13] by any means, not even divine magic.

We also know what is beyond our solar system. And that proves that the stars can't fall from the sky [Matthew 24:29] and even if they did, we still couldn't stomp on them [Daniel 8:10] because they're each millions of miles around, unless they're really galaxies, which the Bible authors didn't know anything about. That makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of stars in combat with a mere human being [Judges 5:20].

We know what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever "seal up the stars" [Job 9:7] as the belief in Mithras implied. We also know that the Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time [Genesis 1:17-19] and that the stars weren't "set" specifically to light the Earth. Because the Earth is not at the center, -or the beginning- [Genesis 1:1] of the universe in any respect. The way the Bible depicts the Earth in relation to the rest of the cosmos is wrong, and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.

Anyone could have written this more accurately. How about this?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the stars without number, and all [else] that is in the expanse of the sky. And God made one of these stars into the sun. Then he made the earth and other planets. He made the moons also; one for this world, and some for the others."

See how easy that is? Now if Genesis 1 were written that way, then I would have to respect it, even if the rest of Genesis were still as wrong as it all is. But the fact is the Bible got this wrong, just like it got everything else wrong, back to front.

You still haven't apologized for saying that science "changes its views every month to suit their agendas". Don't lie to me and then call me dishonest. I'm not that stupid. You're the ignoring all the facts. That's why you keep ignoring all of my questions too.

For example:

1. What "agenda" does science have?
2. Was Adam created with genitalia and/or nipples? And in either case, why?
3. Are you permitted to boil a baby goat in its own mother's milk/fat? Yes or no.
And 4. (Remember when I predicted you would ignore this question?) How does one improve understanding -and make sure that it is an improvement?

If you ignore all my points and queries again, and again can only argue by insulting me, or trying to project your own faults onto me, then don't expect much of a reply, other than "I told you so". Because I've debated hundreds of thoughtlessly mind-wiped faith believers like you, and not a one among you knows anything you think you do.

 

[AronRa]

ImpressiveWebs 08/16/2010

Unless you accept the verb tenses used in Genesis, and unless you accept the implications of those tenses, and unless you accept that the word "made" is not the same as the word "create", then there's nothing else to discuss.

You have no interest in correcting any of your obvious mistakes (the fish, the Jephthah issue, the "made/create" issue, etc), so there's no point in continuing this.

Enjoy the rest of your life as you continue to attack strawmen and tell people obvious lies like "the Bible calls whales fish".

I still have never used any strawman, and I have to wonder if you even know what a strawman is. Do you even care what it is? You're still dodging all my questions, and lying to me outright, so I doubt if you even care what a whit about accuracy at all.

I already said that it didn't matter whether the word means 'made to' or 'create', nor does it matter what tense it is in. Either way Genesis 1 describes the earth and the heavens being created three days before all the peripheral items were placed into that expanse, meaning everything else in the universe.

I also conceded the point of interpretation with regard to the 'fish', but it is a lie to say that the Bible does NOT refer to whales as fish, because Matthew 12:40 in the KJV clearly does use that word, and there are thousands of theologians who consider the KJV to be the most accurate version. None of that matters, because I've already shown that all versions have it completely wrong where it matters most. I've also shown that you were wrong about Jephthah, though we both know you'll never admit that, and we both know WHY you won't.

I've already conceded my mistakes, but we both know you can't, because you have a doctrinal obligation to protect your precious fables even after they've been proven wrong. That's why you keep dodging all my questions, and that's why you're trying to escape this conversation now. There's no way to win when you've already lost, and your religion forbids you to be honest enough to admit any error. All you can do in that case is embarrass yourself more and waste more of my time.

 

[AronRa]

ImpressiveWebs 08/16/2010

A strawman is a fallacy where you tear down a position that is not held by the opposing party, making it seem as though you're right.

Yes, of course -- if the Bible said that the sun and moon were "created" on day four, then this would certainly be an argument against its authenticity, and would prove the Bible to be nothing but fables.

However, the Bible does not say that the sun and moon were "created" on day four. In fact, the exact opposite is stated because it uses progressive verb forms on the subsequent days, showing that these were actions still in progress and could have started on a previous day (or in Genesis 1:1, when it actually DOES say that the sun, moon, stars -- collectively the heavens like 2:4 -- were created).

If you can't acknowledge the BASIC FACT that the Hebrew verb tenses play a large role in how Genesis 1 is interpreted, then we have nothing more to discuss.

You're dishonest, because you will not accept these facts of the Hebrew Bible.

The KJV is trash, it has tens of thousands of errors, which even a 10-year old could figure out at times. Theologians don't care about that, they just care about their own agendas, the same as atheists.

Now, if you want to continue this conversation, and if you want me to answer questions about Adam's belly button or his penis or whatever, then I will gladly do so -- as long as you concede that the Bible does not say that the sun, moon, and stars were "created" on day 4; and as long as you concede that it's perfectly logical to conclude that the "heavens" in 1:1 could mean "heavens and everything in it", as it so clearly does in Genesis 2:4. Doesn't 2:4 use the word "heavens" in a collective sense, including everything in it? Why does the meaning of the word "heavens" change in 2:4?

Are you willing to admit these things? These are serious flaws in your argumentation, and in order for you to be honest like you claim to be, then you have to acknowledge these mistakes.

Then we can discuss if I was wrong about Jephthah, or Adam, or other issues.

AronRa 08/17/2010

Yes, a strawman is a fallacy where one tears down a position that is not actually held by the opposing party, a parody of the opposing position. But that is not what I've done. I'm criticizing the position you actually do hold by your admission/explanation.

Although this will be the 4th time I have explained the same thing, you still don't get it, so I will do so more explicitly this time.

>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now you're arguing that in this verse, the word for 'created' is in the 'perfect' tense, implying that the creation of both the earth and the heaven is "complete". Yet the very next verse proves you wrong.

>And the earth was without form, and void;

Here we see that the earth is as in-complete as the still-empty heaven.

Now there are two ways of interpreting this. I'm guessing that you will want to say that the 'heaven' represents space, and that the earth is accurately depicted as a sphere suspended within that void. Of course this refutes your other claims against the earth being the only body in space at this time, but it's actually worse than that, because the interpretation illustrated is that God created the earth and sky. From Europe through the Orient, the common impression at that time (which the Bible plainly reflects throughout) was that the earth was a flat disk divided into four quadrants, (commonly mistranslated in Isaiah 11:12 as "corners").

>and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God
>moved upon the face of the waters.

Thus the entire universe, both earth and sky is made of water, the eternal abyss.

>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God
>saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the
>darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
>called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This is so obviously a bed-time story, it stuns me that grown people actually believe any of this is supposed to be real.

>And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
>and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the
>firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament
>from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Another common impression which appears in the mythologies of Persia and China, and [possibly] Greece, is that the firmament is essentially a giant glass or crystal dome over the flat disk-shaped earth. The Bible indicates this later on, but here takes for granted that everyone hearing the story back then already knew what the firmament was. Of course we know better now, but the people who wrote the Bible obviously didn't, and included all the errors in human perception that were already universally accepted among men.

>And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
>morning were the second day.

Remember that you argued that the heaven was 'completed' in the first verse. But here we see it completed AGAIN, a second time, and it's still just an empty sky; albeit now we have a domicile with 'windows' in it to let the rain in. This interpretation is also mirrored in the Chinese myths of the naga-goddess, NuKua; Wherein a defeated warrior climbs a mountain very close to the firmament and tears a hole in the sky with his spear, thus flooding the whole world.

>And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
>together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it
>was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the
>gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God
>saw that it was good. 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. 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.
>And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So far, it took God three whole days just giving form to the earth. Yet there is as yet no hint of any other heavenly body implied in any way in this text.

>And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
>heaven to divide the day from the night;

You argued that the very first verse was meant to imply that the heaven was completed --along with all its contents- on the very first day. But Genesis has already refuted you three times so far, because it clearly describes the heaven as empty until the fourth day. But it's still than that.

>and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and
>years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the
>heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Here we see that, not only was the earth originally the only body in the universe; but that all the other planets and stars that were known at that time was 'placed' into earth's sky, and in fact exist solely for the benefit of our planet and the astrologers thereon. There is no other way anyone could honestly interpret this.

>And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
>and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Here we see that the sun and moon are treated as though they were both lights, which they are not. And they are each presented as being the same size, which they are not. But it's even worse than that! Because the entire rest of the unfathomably vast universe of billions of galaxies were all sneezed out in a single instant --as an AFTERTHOUGHT- by the same being who had already spent three days working on this one tiny planet, and who is still only half done just with that!

>And God set them in the firmament of the heaven

You argument depends on the tense of the word, 'made', that it doesn't necessarily mean 'create'. But here the Bible refutes you again, because it says that God *placed* these things into the [empty] void of the heaven three days after he "completed" the heaven itself. So the ONLY way to read this is that the heaven previously had nothing in it.

>to give light upon the earth,

Here we see that the earth was not only the first thing to exist in the entire universe, -which we know is wrong- but it is also described here as the very reason why the sun and stars even exist!

>And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
>from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening
>and the morning were the fourth day.

After the fourth day, once the heaven has been populated by the rest of the matter in the universe, then you see the collective sense in the second chapter. But here we see that the sun and moon are both considered to be smaller than the earth, and are both in orbit about the earth, (being placed into the firmament). We know that it isn't true of the sun. We know the sun was just another like 'leventy jillion other 'suns' out there that existed long BEFORE the earth. But the people who wrote the Bible didn't know that. They didn't know anything about stars or planets or the true nature the sphere they didn't even know they lived on. This (and MANY other things) proves the Bible to be nothing but fables.

I cannot 'acknowledge' anything that clearly can't be true. Neither will I pretend that the Bible says something that it obviously doesn't. Nor will I ignore anything it actually does say. But your faith requires all this of you. Consequently, you have lied to me repeatedly, particularly when you accused science of changing its views every month to suit its agenda. But I have never lied to you once, nor will I. Because unlike you, my philosophy craves truth even at the expense of whatever I would rather believe. That is my only 'agenda', to improve my understanding. But we both know you're not interested in that. You have to dodge all my points and queries because you HAVE to defend your faith, and can never concede any error no matter how obviously you are proven wrong. It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, but that is what faith does. It is even more dishonest to keep making those same assertions after they've been disproved, but faith requires that too. That's why I say that faith is dishonest -and so are you.

 

[AronRa]

Since these people are surprisingly unable to admit when they've lost, he responded again:

ImpressiveWebs 08/17/2010

I would like to continue this conversation and respond in detail to what you're saying, however this YouTube messaging is quite limited.

Can you send me an email instead at [email address deleted]? You don't have to send the message again, I'll copy it from here, and provide my responses.

I will also answer any other questions you might have, the ones that you said I was avoiding. This messaging system make things very difficult to divide your statements from mine.

I'd also be happy to debate you one-on-one in a public forum. I will take the position "Genesis Chapter 1 Does Not Contradict Provable Science".

Thank you.

I don't have time for a formal debate, because the rules demand that I have only 24 hours to post replies, and depending on what day of the week it is, I might be several days behind in my messages. But if you could adequately defend your point at all, then this wouldn't have to be a private debate anyway. So here it is archived in public forum for all to see -the way it should have been in the first place.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Beginning to suspect the reason your clown suit still has blood on it. :shock: :lol:

I actually got a fundy to advocate killing small unarmed children as moral last night.
I hope it was just some random discharge in his head. "Hey, I'm getting my ass kicked, better try something new and unexpected."

 

[AronRa]

He sent me another message saying that he never gave me permission to use his words in public. And he demands that I delete references to his YouTube handle -which has no uploads, favorites, or comments, and has zero subscribers. His only friend is a closed account! Ironically, he asked me to post his real name, Louis L. instead. He also refused to participate unless I post to a structured one-on-one debate forum. I told him that it didn't matter whether he still wanted to participate in an online debate or not, since he had already lost that debate before it was posted.

 

[australopithecus]

I was unaware permission was needed. Sounds like handing him his arse resulted in butthurt to me. Heat, kitchen, etc.

 

[simonecuttlefish]

I've had a few mertlots here so I may have missed the point, but I was wondering, if the original argument goes 'the Bible does not say that the rest of the stars and planets were created after the earth, and that the earth was never the only thing in the universe -according to the first chapter of Genesis', then this is problem.

It does not say he created the Flying Spaghetti Monster to finish it off, and it doesn't say his next door neighbour Amun-Ra was asked to create most if it before hand, (being gods this should be no problem), and it doesn't say that he would leave evidence to suggest it never happened.

I'm getting confused with the argument over 'tense' used in languages when the argument seems to defy the reason for asking the question. If the Bible does not say something may have occurred, thus it may have occurred, then 'thus god committed suicide and it all got called off' is equally valid (invalid) because it doesn't say that either.

Should I have spent more time reading the previous posts?

 

[simonecuttlefish]

I thought he was onto something, as there is lots of passages that only says he created the heaven and the earth in 6 days. And who knows what the alleged 'heavens' means Mr smarty pants.

Exodus 31:17
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

and

Exodus 20:11
11For 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.

But then I thought "Sorry - I missed the whole point, you were discussing TENTS!"

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Psalm 19
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun

You were right, it was all about ancient Hebrew tents, and how they describe the 'heavens'.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I didn't see it in these transcripts, but did you also point out to him that daylight was created several days before the sun? The sun doesn't actually light the Earth apparently, it just sits up there being painful to look at and casting shadows.

 

[lrkun]

I think the person you are debating found meaning patterns in the Bible of which is formed through his personal bias and understanding of the bible. The bible has many different versions, and to consider the present and imperfect tense as a means to justify his position is not enough evidence that should support his claim.
[showmoremsg msg= Patternicity]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns[/showmoremsg]

Of course patternicity applies to images, but I think it can be applied via analogy with respect to one's imagination, especially since the bible is very descriptive. The words invoke images as you read them, this is particular with Genesis.

Furthermore, the person you are debating is an apologetic, he has rationalized that the existence of God as proven by the Bible to be akin to a first principles in logic of which he must believe that it cannot be wrong, therefore it must be accepted.

I don't think there is a need to debate those who cannot argue or accept the evidence if it is presented in their faces. Nevertheless, it is also helpful to guide fellow seekers who question and ponder on the idea of the word god, bible, and supernatural.

 

[TheMaw]

It's unfortunate that there will always be people defending those verses in an attempt to keep in infallible and divine. It's clearly obvious that Genesis chapter 1 is blatantly wrong.

 

[MineMineMine]

For the record: The word choice and linguistics in the Bible are of the the highest quality, and no human could make any corrections to the book of Genesis to make it more accurate.

can i refund my broken brain cells please?

>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now you're arguing that in this verse, the word for 'created' is in the 'perfect' tense, implying that the creation of both the earth and the heaven is "complete". Yet the very next verse proves you wrong.

you missed his point here o.0 he argues that hebrew tense here is different from the english version and that they are different. So you basicly must learn hebrew and use the according passage in that language to argue with him.




hm can't we just throw out an updated bible which has all the scientific mistakes corrected and maybe updated moral values.... you know for the lols?

 

[Story]

It's interesting to note that the errors in the bible lend credulity to the notion that it is man-made, but if it were error-less by some special interpretation this would actually lend no credulity to the claim that a big magic man in the sky wrote it.

The argument fails when you attempt to define the attributes of big magic men. None of their descriptions appear to be made by empirical observation and mostly by the big magic man's testimony which is in the book the big magic man allegedly wrote which defines the attributes of how to tell that the big magic man wrote it.

Nevertheless, we know that logic is circular, but I suppose the biggest question is, why did the big magic man trick his followers for hundreds of years into believing the false thing and then wait till modern science found out the real answer to then reveal through this guy that the real interpretation is what he says.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Interesting to see someone argue in favour of the Bible's in-errancy whilst dismissing the KJV - that's a new one on me! One assumes he's using ... the Jerusalem Bible in Hebrew? Another Hebraic version??

Given that most monotheists (Jews/Christians/Muslims) believe that "Man is the centre of the universe", which - added to the geocentric cosmology of the Greeks, etc, - led to the idea of the Earth being at the centre of Creation, it's easy to see how this idea arose.

His claim regarding tenses/interpretations of "create" and "made" (English from Hebrew) may be valid - I recall an author mentioning that at least one Biblical scholar claimed that the word which we take as "create" could also mean "re-arrange": in other words, the universe already existed and was re-arranged (Eastern philosophy's "out of chaos arose order" ??) prior to the creation of Man.

Please note that I'm not taking his side on this - just posting some thoughts having read the above discussion between the protagonists.

For the record: The word choice and linguistics in the Bible are of the the highest quality, and no human could make any corrections to the book of Genesis to make it more accurate.

Well, this depends on which version of the Bible - or, more accurately, Genesis - he claims to be the true one.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[borrofburi]

As a christian I was quite thoroughly convinced that I could not believe in evolution and the bible at the same time, by reasoning such as this document:
http://creation.com/some-questions-for-theistic-evolutionists

It was, ironically, a very bad choice of strategies for the christians: they thought the matchup between religion and evolution would me evolution would lose; what they were actually doing was making it religion vs established scientific fact (or religion vs reality).

But documents like those still make me wonder how on earth theistic evolutionists can remain christian.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As a christian I was quite thoroughly convinced that I could not believe in evolution and the bible at the same time, by reasoning such as this document:
http://creation.com/some-questions-for-theistic-evolutionists

It was, ironically, a very bad choice of strategies for the christians: they thought the matchup between religion and evolution would me evolution would lose; what they were actually doing was making it religion vs established scientific fact (or religion vs reality).

But documents like those still make me wonder how on earth theistic evolutionists can remain christian.

Theistic evolutionists who are "Literalists" - take their scripture literally - would find it difficult to remain so rigid in their beliefs/thinking.

The majority of TEs, like Ken Miller, however, are "flexible" - to use the CMI blogger's term - and don't put much store by their scripture's descriptions of physical reality. For such theists, the important part is the spiritual/soul aspect of Man - the physical/body aspect is just "clothing for the soul", and therefore relatively unimportant, along with any apparent conflicts with scripture's claims.

I'm a "flexible" TE - I find the CMI's questions laughable.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[brettpalmer]

Aron,

Do you mind if I use this:

The Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was written had only TWO verb tenses: PERFECT and IMPERFECT.

Genesis 1:1 uses the PERFECT tense; this implies that the creation of heaven and earth were complete, a past action.

Genesis 1:16 (the word "made") uses the IMPERFECT tense. That doesn't mean it's an inferior tense (as you misunderstood). The tense represents the fact that the action of "making" the sun, moon, and stars had already begun long before day 4, and could feasibly be continued into day 5. This is a fact, because the verb tense is "IMPERFECT". In other words, the beginning and and of the "making" is unknown (i.e. "imperfect").

The verb tenses used show that the Bible is 100% accurate in its description of the creation of heaven and earth and everything on it. The only way you can say that the Genesis account is not scientific is by denying these linguistic facts. And that's just not honest.

In part of my Genesis series? Unless you wish me to, I won't "source" the statement (in fact, I won't even use it verbatim) but merely use it as another way apologists try to get around What Genesis Got Wrong...!