Posted on 03/23/2006 7:16:15 AM PST by charming_harmonica
Many people will tell you they believe in the Genesis account of creation. They�ll tell you they believe in the story of Adam and Eve. And then they�ll tell you they believe in evolution as well. In fact, I once had a college professor who, on the first day of class, stated that his father was a preacher, and that Christians who didn�t think both creation and evolution could be and are both true were stupid and in denial.
Did God really create the world in 6 days? Couldn�t evolution fit somewhere inside those 6 days? Is there a gap somewhere in the Genesis creation timeline? This article addresses questions like these to answer whether or not it is possible for both creation and evolution to be true.
First, let�s examine the idea of evolution from the perspective of scripture. The Bible tells us that death entered the world as a result of Adam�s sin in the garden. This is a foundational principle even to the Gospel message. To say, then, that evolution occured before or during the 6 days of creation, as some suggest, contradicts with one of the first and most important historical events of all time�the fall of man. Man was created on the 6th day, along with the animals. It is some time after the 6th day of creation�when man had already been completely formed�that death entered the world. If evolution requires death to occur (it does), it is impossible for evolution to occur before death. Thus, a very surface understanding of Genesis will prove that Biblical creation does not allow for the coexistence of evolution.
The above argument holds true even if the 6 days of creation could be interpreted as �ages� (known as the Day-Age Theory), or long periods of time, such as millions and millions of years. There are also some who suggest that there were millions of years that occured before the Genesis account of creation, thus allowing for the world and life to have come into existence previously. Again, the above argument holds true. Evolution requires death, and death did not enter the world until after Adam had been fully formed, after he named the animals, etc. Clearly, life as we know it existed before a point in time when evolution would have been a complete impossibility.
The worldly foolishness (which it considers wisdom) that penetrates the Church is dangerous. This is a prime example of the danger involved in trying to reconcile the fallible concepts of man�s sinful and fallen mind with the perfect and complete written revelation of God. There is no way in which a person reading through Genesis would come to the conclusion that it was talking about anything other than a literal 6 day period of creation. Unless that person had been indoctrinated beforehand by those who desire to remain in denial of God�s existence. That is, these people are using something outside the Bible to interpret what the Bible clearly states. These Christians view the Bible through the blurry spectacles of the world, rather than having their worldview formed by the Word of God!
But what about the days of Genesis? Couldn�t the �days� really be �ages�? The Hebrew word yom (translated �day�) can be used to mean something other than our familiar (roughyl) 24-hour day. However, in the creation account, the term yom is used with the phrase �morning and evening�, accompanied by a number, clearly referring to a literal day. Outside of Genesis, every time yom is used with a number (410 times), it refers to a literal day. Elsewhere, �evening� and �morning� show up with yom 23 times, and by themselves 38 times�each time referring to a literal 24-hour day. The term �night� is used with yom 53 times, similarly indicating a 24-hour day. Other Hebrew words (olam and qedem) could have been used to indicate periods of time here, but neither was used even once.
It is clear from this evidence that when we read scripture to find out what God is telling us, rather than trying to twist and distort scripture to fit what scientists want us to believe, the literal 6 days of creation is the only interpretation we can have.
Why would you doubt what an infinite God has told you? That He, in His infinite wisdom and power, created the world in only 6 days? We have no reason to doubt that a god could do this. But why did He take so long, then? Perhaps as an example to us. In Exodus 20:11, God commands the Israelites to keep the Sabbath day, viewing it in light of creation. It is possible, then, that God purposefully took 6 days to create the world in order to model how people should live�working and resting. The writing of Exodus 20:11 indicates that it is certainly not an allegorical statement. What I mean is that scholars have analyzed the writing and decided that it is clearly written to be understood as relating apples to apples�days to days.
There is an abundance of other evidence for the literal interpretation of Genesis. Though man�s fallible attempts to disguise his ignorance (we call this science) sometimes contradict with scripture, the vast majority of scientific evidence actually supports the Biblical account of creation. We�re indoctrinated with the idea that evolution has been proven, yet who can actually give proof for it? No one. In fact, the most famous scientific experiments which have supposedly �proven� neo-Darwinistic evolution are far from being proof, or even true evidence. Many times an understanding of what happened in the experiments actually supports creation, not evolution!
We must use the perfect and infallible Word of God to form our worldview and to study all other things. Using evolutionary thinking to interpret the Bible would be like using a warped piece of wood to see if a straight-edge was straight.
Some argue that the word asah (translated �made�) also means to �show�, so the meaning is that God showed Moses (revealed to him) over a period of six days what happened in creation, and that creation itself actually took millions of years. The answer to this is simple: asah has no meaning similar to �show�. The word refers to making. Another objection: How could there be literal days before the sun was created, which didn�t happen until the fourth day? The answer is, again, found in scripture. God created light on day one. The sun was not the source of that light, but the light still existed. This is all that is needed to have day and night. In Revelation 21:23, we�re told that at some point in the future, we will not need the sun, because Christ�s glory will give light to the heavenly city.
For those that would insist on both creation and evolution being true, they would have to explain how the sources of light were not created until the 4th day, and yet evolution (which requires energy from the sun, according to evolutionary scientists) occured before then.
What about 2 Peter 3:8, which says , �a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day�? Isn�t this saying that the days of Genesis could have been long periods of time? First off, this does not refer to creation at all. It�s actually talking about the Second Coming, which is the context in which is should be understood. Second, it�s an analogy, saying something is like something else, not that it is something else. Not only that, but the second part of the verse (saying, �a thousand years are like a single day�) would cancel out the first part of the verse, leaving us back where we started�with a single day. A consistent reading of scripture would require that if we should say that the Genesis days were a thousand years, then we should also say that Jonah, for instance, was in the fish for thousands of years.
There is an objection that is used both by Christians to suggest that the creation days were long periods of time and by unbelievers to say that the Bible is false: Adam could not have named all the animals in a single day. There are a number of things that need to be considered here. First, Adam did not name ALL the animals, he only named those brought to him. Also, he did not name every species as we have them today (an arbitrary naming system), but most likely only the kinds of animals. Adam had a perfect mind before the fall, and though many cannot imagine undertaking such a task today, Adam certainly had the ability to name the animals brought to him.
Doesn�t Genesis 1 contradict with the account of Genesis 2? Couldn�t that then mean that the days were not literal days? No. The confusion here comes from the language of the passage, not the meaning. Some believe that Genesis 2 says the animals were formed between Adam and Eve, when really it states, in between speaking of Adam and Eve, that they had been formed. It also speaks of certain plants, saying they hadn�t yet sprouted, but this is referring clearly to cultivated plants which needed man to tend them. In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus Himself refers to both accounts, clearly believing them to be free from contradiction.
As mentioned above, the terms �evening and morning� are used to describe the days in Genesis 1. But those words do not appear in reference to the seventh day. Thus, cam we assume that the seventh day is still occuring at this moment? No. Scripture says that on the seventh day, God rested, not that He is resting. Every other evidence as mentioned above referring to the literal days of creation applies to the seventh day as well. The fact that God cursed the ground after the fall would contradict God making the seventh day holy if in fact the seventh day had not come to an end.
There are a number of other questions for people to answer if they insist on trying to reconcile evolution and creation by assuming the Day-Age Theory:
If plants (created on day 3) were created millions of years before the animals needed for them to survive (pollination, etc), how is it they stilll exist today?
If the days were at least a thousand years each, how could Adam (being created on the 6th day and surviving through the 7th) have only been 930 years old when he died (Genesis 5:5)?
Lastly, there are several discrepancies in the order of creation and the order of evolution. Creation says the earth was covered with water intially, existing before the sun and stars. Evolution says the earth was a molten blob intially, existing after the sun and stars. Creation says the oceans were created before dry land, and that life was created on land. Evolution says that dry land was created before oceans, and that life came about in the water. As stated above, creation says plants existed before the sun, but evolution says that evolved after the sun formed. Creation says birds and whales existed before land animals, but evolution says land animals existed before birds and whales.
There is no way to reconcile creation and evolution.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says:
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
Do not let the sinful and corrupt thoughts of men dictate to you whether or not the Bible is correct. View the world instead through the understanding given to us by the holy and God-breathed scriptures.
The Evidence of Things Not Seen
By Archbishop Lazar PuhaloArchbishop Lazar's lectures on Orthodoxy and modern physics. A profoundly spiritual refutation of the confused contentions of Fundamentalists and modern Scholastics. Archbishop Lazar demonstrates the falsity of the idea that there is a necessary conflict between Orthodox Christianity and modern science. He traces the history of the idea of such a conflict. This book is a much welcome answer to the confusion created in the minds of many of our educated young people by the Fundamentalists and Scholastics. Young people are reassured that, contrary to the obvious conclusion from Fundamentalist views, they do not have to choose between God and truth.
http://www.synaxispress.com/bookstore1.html
Pushing an agenda of man.
I think this treatise does an excellent job of explaining the so-called 'conflict' between Creationism and Evolution....
http://www.setterfield.org/scriptchron.htm#toadam
BTTT
Then there is the gap theory in Gen 1:1-2 The earth was formed then became void. (fall of satan)
Compared to Isa 45:18 God created the heaven and earth not in vain for man to inhabit.
Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(KJV)
Isa 45:18
18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
(KJV)
I guess that would be true - except that the EARTH didn't exist, either at that point, and he was talking as if the existence of "light" is so important to defining a day. So it's all moot.
"There is no way to reconcile creation and evolution." ~ charming_harmonica
Two links that may be of interest:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556731884/002-8261228-7635245?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.genesisproclaimed.org
Ping to read later
http://www.echoesofenoch.com/hollowearth.htm
The Earth is hollow!!!!!!!!!!!
I read it on the Internet therefore it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible says so too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........
Isa 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 out like a tent to dwell in."
.......and we all know that the Bible is the literal Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets all get together and get this into our Godless Public School System as a viable alternative to what the Godless Geologists profess!!!!!!!!
Who's with me?
And now a word from the illustrious founder of the Hollow Earth Society:
Sorry, the author loses me in the first two paragraphs. Evolution does not purport to claim to account for the origin of the physical universe. The Universe is not "evolving" in the definition that biological evolution describes- from disorder to order.
If fact, the second law of thermodynamic energy (entropy), systems tend to move from order to disorder. I find that people who use evolution to describe the creation model of the Universe either don’t know the theories and how they are applied or are intentionally intermixing the terms to create a straw man to knock down biological creation theories. In this authors case, it is the former.
God IS Truth.
Science is all observed and tested theories that are not demonstrably false at this time. It is NOT Truth.
Historical science (evolution, geology, cosomolgy) are pure speculation taken on faith with no basis in testable, observable reality required by the scientific method.
A point which the Archbishop uses at the focus of his lectures. Science is the pursuit of truth, which is why we need not fear what it learns. The problems arise when people have their perceptions of reality challenged.
Various atheistic theories of evolution, geology, and cosmology are anti-scientific because they are unobservable and untestable having supposedly occurred in the past before humans were around to see; they are anti-religious because they form a counter-religion to Christianity.
If they are anti-scientific, then why would you want to judge Science by them? That would be like judging Christians based upon the actions of atheists, would it not?
Science adopts them as its pinnacle of accomplishment, and centers the rest of itself around them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.