The Lie of Evolution......

It is not.

Poetic language - day first, second etc.

Repetitions - "And God said... and God saw".

Poetic names - lesser and greater light instead of sun and moon.

Talking snake. Trees. Dust. Woman from side of a man.

Its obviously a poetic language, not a narrative style.

Do you believe in a single common ancestry?

Not sure how to apply word "believe" here. I have no problem with a common ancestry.

Hebrew poetic form doesn't mean that it is not meant to be literal. Look at the Psalms and other poetic parts of the Bible. Try again. The poetic part is the alignment of day 1 to day 4, day 2 to day 5, and day 3 to day 6. Are you saying God did this just by accident? Methinks not!!!

Addendum because of the 5 minute rule.
It is still a narrative of creation that should be taken literally since science has proven all of the big bang evolution fails 5 seperate scientific laws. I use the Creation Ministries International as a reference source. It is a multinational science based Christian organization defending Genesis 1 "In the begining God created the heavens and earth." I suggest you research their web site at creation.com. Refute their scientists if you can. Also irc.com is another smaller organization based in Dallas doing the same work. Look at their site as well. You have a major problem trying to refute their scientists.

SCIENCE AND FACTS NOT EMOTION DRIVEN BELIEFS!!

5 Miracles of Violating Scientific Laws for Big Bang Evolution
https://creation.com/five-atheist-miracles

Genesis as a historical narative
https://creation.com/genesis-as-ancient-historical-narrative

Problem with old earth concept.
https://creation.com/flaws-in-dating-the-earth-as-ancient

s8int.com is another site as well.

A poetic text can be literal but does not have to be.

If you have a poetic text, you can read it literally (like flat earth with a solid dome or your heart being the center of your thoughts), if you wish.

But if reality seems to be different, than you can read it metaphorically. If its a poetic text, it allows such reading. Its not any kind of unbelief or anything "unchristian".

You seem to be unable to want to look at what experts I referenced to you have to say. You just want to ignore the experts. Why??

Nonsensical question.

You know very well that you are the one ignoring experts. You must believe that the vast majorty of scientists are either liars or stupid.

Continued from page 15,

#5,

On that website #5 is a series of statements that basically say that the authors cannot answer the questions they pose, so they believe that no one else can either. They believe that it confirms what they believe, because they will never accept another persons assessment.

---------------------

The origin of the mind of the human souls is from God. (Adam and his descendants).

In Romans 2:14, it says that the gentiles are a law unto themselves.

Remember in Egypt when Abram's wife was adored by Pharaoh? Gen 12:10-20, The Pharaoh's house was without children? Pharaoh believed it was wrong to take another man's wife without the Law of Moses telling him. He had a law unto himself witnessing that there was law and right and wrong. But Pharaoh was not in the covenant relationship with God like Abram was.

Adam was in the same situation with the tribes around him. Adam was a human soul in a covenant relationship with God, having the laws of that covenant. The almost human souls were spirits that were not in the same relationship with God. They were without the law of God. You could say that they were almost capable of being in a covenant relationship with God, but that did not happen for the most part until after Pentecost and the rejection of Jesus and the gospel kingdom by Israel. You might say that they were under grace and not the laws of the covenant, not responsible to the law.

So the development of the mind of the human soul was in the law of God through the covenant. Until the time that Adam received the law, don't eat the fruit, he was under grace, just as all the other near human creatures and animals. But when the law came, sin came with it, because man was not aware of sin before that time, because there was no law. Rom 7:9.

So the evolution of the human mind from an almost human soul, into a modern man came when Adam broke the law of God and sin came. When sin came, guilt and ego (self awareness) came and the awareness level of Adam related to his body, environment, and God was brought to a new level that others did not have.

This awareness of environment (surroundings), is in every creature to some degree, to eat or be eaten. The development of this awareness level is essential to survival. The greater your capacity to evaluate the danger to you, the greater the chance of survival is. So through the process of evolution, one factor that would influence survival would be awareness level.

Through the principles of evolution created by God, God created the almost human souls. His action of the covenant brought Adam and his descendants to a new level of the mind through awareness levels in a covenant relationship.

----------------------

Answered all 5 with no response starting on pg 15.



Gen is a historical narrative, yes.

But it was written by Moses generations after the creation, flood, Babel, the journeys of Abraham, and the 400 years of captivity in Egypt.

These are the stories of the generations of the human souls. Probably passed down from Adam to son and generations following them. It is believed that Noah brought many books with him on the ark for the preservation of knowledge. This also gave the human souls an advantage over the almost human spirits that survived the flood.

Since the narrative is approx. 3200- 3500 years old, some understanding of the people of that time and their viewpoint should be considered in the interpretation.




All this shows is that is variation in the application of experiments. It really doesn't prove that it is wrong, only that the results can vary.

The experiment example debates whether the sample is 4.5 billion years old or 6 billion years old. Which estimate are you going to go with? 4.5 billion or 6 billion? Wait, you are going with 6000 + 4000 = 10,000? or 13000? How many times will you have to test that sample until you get 13000 years? You probably will NEVER get that answer!


Whatever that website says, you believe? Yes/No? Could they be wrong that the creation story of Gen 1 is symbolic and not literal?

--------

I finally found the original source of the narrative/poetry study on Genesis 1:
http://www.icr.org/article/biblical-hebrew-creation-account-new-numbers-tell-/

The author concludes that, on the basis of verbs used, the creation story is clearly narrative, not poetic.

Thanks for the article. I see some big problems there:

1. Wrong methodology
a) oversimplification
Verbal forms of Hebrew poetry are much, much, much more complicated than what the article suggest.
See for example this study, very recommended!!!! to at least skim through it to recognize the complexity of the problem:
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42154363/complete+dissertation.pdf

b) statistics (computing) to decide genre of the human language
It always need something more than statistics and mathematics to decide meaning or genre. Language cannot be projected to mathematical algorithms. Thats why Google translator and similar software are still unreliable. It needs humand mind to process it, regarding context, content, repetitions etc.

c) poetry/narrative is not identified just by verb forms
Parallelism, patterns, nouns and names used, repetitions etc. are very important to identify if it should be taken like a scientific description of a process or if like a message with theological meanings.
https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1053&context=jibs

2. Wrong conclusion
In the conclusion, it is said: "Statistically [which is irrelevant, see 1b]... it is not defensible to read Gen 1 as poetry. Since Genesis 1 is a narrative..."
But the simple fact that Gen 1 is not (as the author claims) statistically the same as other poetries in the Bible, it does not mean that Gen 1 is a narrative - most credible institutions, authors or commentaries say that Gen 1 is something like poetry, its special, its neither 100% poetry, but its also not a narrative. Its some kind of hymn or prologue, very close to poetry. To simply say "statistically it is not a poetry" does not mean "its a narrative, therefore YEC is true, Q.E.D."
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...esis/text/articles-books/hummel_gen1_jasa.pdf
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_poetry.html
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21225/is-genesis-1-a-type-of-hebrew-poem

"Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry...On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose... Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament." (G. J. Wenham)

3. Bias of the study
This article is quoted only on three YEC websites - cretion.com, Answers in Genesis and icr.org. The study itself is obviosly concentrated on proving that Genesis 1 is literal and is made jointly by icr and aig and creation.com. Its similar to studies proving that wine is healthy made/paid by wine producers.

4. Very short material, without any relevant data
We know the author did something with something, but we are unable to see how or why. We are unable to verify his position, his claims or even results. I was unable to get the original study.

5. Even if prose, it does not mean the text needs to be read literally
"I am a door" is a prose, but not to be taken literally. Even if you are certain that its not poetic, it does not mean that day must mean 24hours, that breathing into nostrils was literal like in some kind of emergency room etc.

6. Gen 1 and 2 is a different genre from other Bible texts (its unique), thats why there are so many opinions on how it should be read.
Therefore there is not "one certain way that is orthodox Christianity and other views are created by liars, liberals or atheists".
Maybe, YEC reading is right. Maybe it is not. I think it is not. But my life or faith will not change a bit if it is. I am not sure its the true also for YEC christians.

I can see your point with regard to the motivation of the study, but frankly, your comments on the understanding of Hebrew verb forms are a little thin. I'm certain the author's understanding of the matter is adequate to the task.

It is a summary article, not the study itself. Writing it off as irrelevant because you can't get to the original study is disingenuous.

Your view is that it is poetry, and your arguments for defending it as such are just as presuppositional as the arguments in favour of it being narrative.

"I am a door" can definitely be prose, it is, however, figurative language, yet still completely true, while not a physical door He is indeed a spiritual door.

"I am a door" could be used in poetry or in prose.

Genesis whether written in a poetic style or prose is still truth.

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21)

Change within a kind is biblical ...

The ostrich, the short-eared owl, the seagull, and the hawk after its kind: the little owl, the fisher owl and the screech owl (Leviticus 11:16,17).

However, oranges do not become or turn into apples or vice versa.

Would you accept that Genesis is poetry, if the same article, just with the opposite direction (that Gen 1 is obviously not a narrative) would be published on biologos or reasons.org?

Would you say "I do not need to see the study, this article is enough, the author's understanding of the matter is adequate to the task"?

No. You know the article is strange, at best. You trust it just because you believe in the same thing and because you trust icr.org and similar websites

Also, the conclusion is so obvously wrong. Yes, Gen 1 is not a typical poetry. But it is not a typical narrative either. The conclusion of the article is so wrong, you must see it too.

Yes, Genesis written as poetry, hymn, metaphorically, is still truth. But not literally.

Like "Jesus is door" is still truth, but not literally.

Like Psalms are still truth, but we read them in a different way than how we read school textbooks about biology, geology, cosmology etc.

I am sure that God could have had the writer write the creation story just like a science textbook if He had

chosen to do so........

and I am also absolutely sure we would have NO any understanding of what was written (assuming language would even be able to

support such a scientific narrative and there were enough tablets, memory or paper to hold it all) .....why....you ask....... our finite

limited minds can never grasp how the infinite all knowing creator

creates (etymology ex-nihilo), God in His graciousness reveals His creative powers (so we have some understanding of the beginning)

in a descriptive manner for a limited human mind, yet somehow for some that is not good enough they think it needs to be

supplemented by man's science (macro evolution) which contradicts and replaces the descriptive narrative that God provides.

God does not need expansive amounts of time to create. God does not create from death and destruction, totally contradictory to the very nature of God.

Only evolutionists need expansive amounts of time, death and destruction because without large amounts of time. death and destruction the theory falls apart.

Evolution from one species to another has not been observed in the fossil record, although eagerly sought by those who subscribe to the idea. There have been manufactured attempts to prove evolution of species. They have been exposed. There is mutation, adaptation, as was stated above; survival driven alterations to allow the best suited to survive environmental stressors.

The step from molecules in a hot pond full of amino acids to information coded reproducing, self-correcting DNA is statistically beyond chance. DNA had to precede life in any form. (with the attendant transferase RNA designed molecules). And that only generates proteins, not life forms or organs and meta-systems within organisms.

The Spirit gives life. The flesh counts for nothing.

It's usual that the Dawkins mindset condescends and ridicules, using emotional put-down tactics to dismiss any rejection of evolution. Some scientists are able to use their intelligence to observe reality, others need to use snooty arguments to back-foot those unaware of the atomic, molecular, and system-theory properties that MUST be violated to accept inter-species 'evolution'. Ignorance is not our friend.

Bless you all.

Actually, you are quite wrong. The ancient Jewish idea is that God worked with preexisting waters, that he put chaos into control, that he bound Leviathan. Also ancient cultures generally accepte the view that God put chaos into cosmic order by his logos. You are indoctrinated by modern day preachers who are without deep historic knowledge.

God did not write the creation of the universe like a text book because science is not the lesson God is teaching. He could have filled volumes of books about every scientific process but he didn’t. God’s focus is on Jesus and our relationship with God, Jesus and fellow man.
God never intended for there to be endless discussions on if the earth is ten thousand years old vs. billions.