Evolution, Science, and God

[rsc2a]

I would say mother of all living souls because Adam is called a living soul. The animals are not called this.

Actually, the Hebrew word for "soul" is "nephesh" and it could be applied to any kind of animal as well as mankind (and, debatably, plant life as well). In fact, the word is used to refer to animals before ever referencing humanity.

 

[brianb]

We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis

Many today think that the Reformers had nothing to say about this issue or that they couldn't have been young earth creationists. I know they didn't have science to decide whether he was right or wrong but they were probably those who disagreed with Luther. And Luther wasn't afraid of the Catholic church so he didn't say these things because he had to. He was very much independent from the Catholic Church but dependent on God. And this was before the time of Ussher who gave a date younger than that of Luther. Luther was merely estimating. It also seems that he was well aware of those who had an alternative interpretation. This debate is certainly not a new one. Can you believe we are debating the same things that Luther was? The only difference is many Christians just accept the word of scientists some of whom are Christians but most of whom are not. And Luther was a man who changed the world. All these scientists (including Hugh Ross, a Christian) have done is change people's minds. I don't agree with everything that Luther did or believed but we need more people like Luther. Thankfully there are real scientists in the secular world (not working for Ken Ham or John Morris) that have unpopular views (YEC) but they are few. We need more Christians especially YEC to become scientists if we are going to change things. We are supposed to salt of the earth and lights but instead many young Christians are told that they can't be palentologists, geologists, astrophysicists, etc because their views will not be accepted. Just because most scientists don't agree with YEC philosophy that doesn't mean they will reject any scientific discoveries by a YEC scientist. Yes the YEC is biased but so is the OEC and Evolutionist. How many scientists are truly open minded? If they discovered a dinosaur fossil that was accurately dated to be 4000 years old would they tell us? Probably not.

 

[brianb]

I would say mother of all living souls because Adam is called a living soul. The animals are not called this.

Actually, the Hebrew word for "soul" is "nephesh" and it could be applied to any kind of animal as well as mankind (and, debatably, plant life as well). In fact, the word is used to refer to animals before ever referencing humanity.

I know. I am well aware that the word soul (nephesh) applies to animals as well.
I was referring to the term "living soul" which is also repeated in the New Testament in contrast to Jesus who is called a quickening/life giving spirit. I believe it may also refer to the immortality of the soul - the soul lives on after death.

 

[rsc2a]

We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis

You know what Luther thought about the Eucharist, right?

 

[rsc2a]

I know. I am well aware that the word soul (nephesh) applies to animals as well.
I was referring to the term "living soul" which is also repeated in the New Testament in contrast to Jesus who is called a quickening/life giving spirit. I believe it may also refer to the immortality of the soul - the soul lives on after death.

??

 

[brianb]

We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis

You know what Luther thought about the Eucharist, right?

Yeah, I'm not saying he was perfect. I do believe he was a better Christian than some of my fellow Baptists. He was certainly more hardworking than many Christians today. He also thought the Book of James shouldn't be in the Bible which of course I disagree with. Also his views of science were simply what was accepted at the time - but he favored the literal interpretation of Genesis because that is the safest way to interpret the Bible. If a day isn't a day in the first chapter of Genesis then what is a day else where in the Bible? There is a science of Biblical interpretation which many have rejected. To me the day "yom" in the first chapter is always 24 hours because on the fourth day the sun and moon are made and ordained to mark what a day is - "let them be for "signs and seasons and for days and years". Also whenever the word day clearly means more than 24 hours such as in Genesis 2:4 there is no number associated with it - first day, second day. Also Genesis 2:4 seems to treat all of creation being in one "day" although the word could also be rendered "time" without changing the meaning. The word there is also "yom" so that's why it is translated "day" but it could just say "in the time that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Since Genesis is about the creation of every thing including our 24 hour day it would be a surprise to Adam and God's people in early times if in Genesis 1 the word day had two different meanings in the same chapter. If I was an old earther I would rather just believe in something similar to the Gap theory than interpret Genesis 1 that way. In the 19th century and early 20th century no fundamentalist Christian believed in the day-age interpretation. The only difference is I would believe that God made the earth but not anything else and just let it sit and age like cheese. This would all be done in darkness and the first day would begin with the creation of light.  However there is no support for that interpretation as well because the Bible when interpreted in a strict literal sense (which means there is no hidden meaning which only supposed "science" can tell us) teaches that everything was created in six days - that is everything that was created from no other previously existing material. I realize that yes it could mean six long ages - I just don't hold to that view. One other interpretation would be that there would be gaps between each day. I don't know why that is never considered - it makes perfect sense. God would on the first day would bring light into being - although I find it strange that there would be a long wait until the second day. On the second day there would be the creation of the sky - dividing of the waters from the waters - this something that is not taught in modern science though. Classic evolutionists say that the earth was dry in the beginning and the clouds were already in the sky. There is no extra-Biblical proof that God divided the waters from the waters - that is something we only accept by faith (science can never prove that this happened although it is scientifically possible - it is just not accepted by most scientists especially those who deny the Bible). In order for something like this to happen naturally it would require an underwater nuclear explosion which would probably make life impossible or at least would destroy any life that would exist. This is obviously something that would happen instantly. There would than be another long wait until the next day - though I still don't know why. What would be the point in all this waiting? I know from a theological standpoint that God is longsuffering and I'm sure he wouldn't mind it if only his angels and cherubim praised him though they wouldn't be praising him very much if he is waiting so much. Look at all the Psalms all the praises are connected to his works (Psalm 145:4). If there is just this long wait than they would not be praising him much. Other than the seventh day in Genesis the Bible teaches that God continues to work - he is very active in his creation and continues to create (now using nature rather than ex nihilo) but if everything that we see now including people is all because of nature than there is no reason to give God the praise for any of it. If I were to believe in Hugh Ross's notion that God is doing nothing as far as creation is concerned I'd believe God didn't care about me. I wonder if that is why so many Christians are apathetic and some are even depressed. Think about it. Look at the world today. Do you see many Christians with the joy of the Lord who praise God often? Once in a while they do when things are going really well but not often. This seems to be more so since more Christians have traded traditional orthodox views of Scripture for new ideas.  Now you personally may thank and  praise God every day (I don't know you) but from what I see very few Christians doing anything. What are we doing about it? Is all this believing in "science" making us better Christians?

 

[rsc2a]

We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis

You know what Luther thought about the Eucharist, right?

Yeah, I'm not saying he was perfect. I do believe he was a better Christian than some of my fellow Baptists. He was certainly more hardworking than many Christians today.

I just think it's odd that you're using his methodology in regards to Genesis but refusing to apply that same methodology to John.

He also thought the Book of James shouldn't be in the Bible which of course I disagree with.

At one point...but that's neither here nor there. 

Also his views of science were simply what was accepted at the time - but he favored the literal interpretation of Genesis because that is the safest way to interpret the Bible.

Then why don't you apply it consistently?

If a day isn't a day in the first chapter of Genesis then what is a day else where in the Bible?

It is a day. When I say that "John kicked the bucket", I am talking about a "real" bucket. But the phrase doesn't actually mean John violently struck a cylindrical metal pot used to hold water. 

There is a science of Biblical interpretation which many have rejected.

Something about general revelation, literary context, cultural context, historical interpretations?

To me the day "yom" in the first chapter is always 24 hours because on the fourth day the sun and moon are made and ordained to mark what a day is - "let them be for "signs and seasons and for days and years".

There's your first clue that you might be wrong....

Also whenever the word day clearly means more than 24 hours such as in Genesis 2:4 there is no number associated with it - first day, second day. Also Genesis 2:4 seems to treat all of creation being in one "day" although the word could also be rendered "time" without changing the meaning. The word there is also "yom" so that's why it is translated "day" but it could just say "in the time that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".

Actually, this isn't true.

Since Genesis is about the creation of every thing including our 24 hour day it would be a surprise to Adam and God's people in early times if in Genesis 1 the word day had two different meanings in the same chapter.

Only if you read the text like a Westerner and not like a ANE nomad.

In the 19th century and early 20th century no fundamentalist Christian believed in the day-age interpretation.

"Fundamentalists" haven't been around that long...

However there is no support for that interpretation as well because the Bible when interpreted in a strict literal sense...

Again...there's a passage in John 6....

I realize that yes it could mean six long ages - I just don't hold to that view. One other interpretation would be that there would be gaps between each day. I don't know why that is never considered - it makes perfect sense.

There is another option....

God would on the first day would bring light into being - although I find it strange that there would be a long wait until the second day. On the second day there would be the creation of the sky - dividing of the waters from the waters - this something that is not taught in modern science though. Classic evolutionists say that the earth was dry in the beginning and the clouds were already in the sky. There is no extra-Biblical proof that God divided the waters from the waters - that is something we only accept by faith (science can never prove that this happened although it is scientifically possible - it is just not accepted by most scientists especially those who deny the Bible). In order for something like this to happen naturally it would require an underwater nuclear explosion which would probably make life impossible or at least would destroy any life that would exist. This is obviously something that would happen instantly.

Or you aren't supposed to read it like a science textbook.

There would than be another long wait until the next day - though I still don't know why. What would be the point in all this waiting? I know from a theological standpoint that God is longsuffering and I'm sure he wouldn't mind it if only his angels and cherubim praised him though they wouldn't be praising him very much if he is waiting so much. Look at all the Psalms all the praises are connected to his works (Psalm 145:4). If there is just this long wait than they would not be praising him much.

I don't agree with your conclusions but the problem is handled by remembering that God is eternal. There is no "yesterday", "today" and "tomorrow" for God because He is actively in all of them all the time.

Other than the seventh day in Genesis the Bible teaches that God continues to work - he is very active in his creation and continues to create (now using nature rather than ex nihilo) but if everything that we see now including people is all because of nature than there is no reason to give God the praise for any of it.

False dichotomy.

If I were to believe in Hugh Ross's notion that God is doing nothing as far as creation is concerned I'd believe God didn't care about me.

I would agree with this.

I wonder if that is why so many Christians are apathetic and some are even depressed.

David suffered major bouts of depression. So did Spurgeon.

Think about it. Look at the world today. Do you see many Christians with the joy of the Lord who praise God often? Once in a while they do when things are going really well but not often....Now you personally may thank and  praise God every day (I don't know you) but from what I see very few Christians doing anything. What are we doing about it?

You think this is a new thing?

This seems to be more so since more Christians have traded traditional orthodox views of Scripture for new ideas.

This is a funny definition of orthodox.

Is all this believing in "science" making us better Christians?

Causation fallacy.