Replies

Well, you're on, except that I think the sequence of Genesis 1 is not scientifically tenable. Nor are the details, even if you accept that there are hundreds of millions of years between days.

For instance, there is no "vault" storing water in the sky. Night and day could not have existed without the sun, yet night and day come before the sun. Life developed in the sea long before it devloped on land, and yet God creates both on the same day. etc, etc, etc.

Trying to literally interpret Genesis is simply untenable. We have to recognize it is a spiritual history, not a scientific or natural history. God wanted to convey the essential spiritual truths of our origins in a manner that could be understood by a people "but little cultured," as Pius XII put it. So He did it in a story that gets accross the essentials and wraps them up in lots of allegorical and metaphorical details, as was commonly done by all semi-nomadic triable peoples of the time.

"Trying to literally interpret Genesis is simply untenable. "

Its unteneble for the theistic evolutionist. Even you believe that the ordering of events in Genesis do not line up with evolution, and that is to your credit, unfortunately, when given the choice between the Word of God and the word of man, you chose man.

This article is an example of the lengths people will go, and many of them dear Christian brothers, to desperately fit evolution into the Bible. His utter scarcity of Scripture to support his "biblical" claims for evolution is a testimony to the futility of his endeavor. He even glosses over the issue of sin, evil, and the fall (one of the key issues in all of Christianity), admitting that his viewpoint does not have a real answer to this question, only hunches.

The wages of sin is death and sin entered the world through Adam, if one believes the Word of God, so how can death exist prior to Adam?

This idea that sin was retroactive to all of creation prior to the "evolution" of man has no biblical support whatsoever, and even he admits that it is only a suggestion that, I would guess, he doesnt even believe.

The Bible and evolution are not compatible. They cannot live in harmony. Belief in evolution is not a requirement for salvation, but many dear brothers and sisters will struggle needlessly in vain to reconcile it with the Word.

JM

Trying to literally interpret Genesis is simply untenable. We have to recognize it is a spiritual history, not a scientific or natural history.

God's the Creator. He can do it anyway He wants to, even in 6 24 hour periods (days). (He's got the bandwidth to spare.)

Night and day could not have existed without the sun, yet night and day come before the sun.

Of couse they can. For example, the light filled part of earth's revolution where you happen to be standing is called day because it is illuminated. Genesis 1:5 "God called the light day, and darkness he called night."

Life developed in the sea long before it devloped on land, and yet God creates both on the same day. etc, etc, etc.

The beasts of the earth and man are created on the same day as well. Two mistakes? I think not. Simple stories for the simple minded? I think not. I dare to believe God did it the exact manner and order as revealed.

Let's be honest. If evolution is true, then there is no need for a Creator. Theistic evolution is an absurdity. And you surely cannot use Genesis to support it. Popular evo theory has birds as the descendents of the "beasts of the earth" (dinosaurs). But God did not create birds on the same day as he created the beasts and man.