>I will take you up on one issue and that is the general understanding that
>Genesis 1 rules out evoulution. I believe that Genesis 1 teaches evolution.
I wanted to keep the "Christ and Creation"
idea on track and respond to your side
argument (rabbit trail :-)) in a separate
post. You may have to take issue with the
whole of scripture and not with me. I
argue nothing in this regard and choose to
let scripture speak for and interpret
itself rather than harmonize it with man's
reason.
It is important to let scripture speak to
us with regard to origins rather than us
"reading into" scripture and interpreting
something that does not exist. Hence my
relial on "translation" rather than
"interpretation" to respond to your post.
I've noted that you quote the NIV version. You probably know that in
developing the NIV, the translators worked towards two goals... 1. An
ecumenical (international) critical text based on Kittel's Biblia
Hebraica,
and... 2. A principle popularized in the 60's called Dynamic Equivalence
which attempted to give impact rather than grammatical or lexical
equivalence in translation. Its use of the word "produce" in Gen 1:11
and 24
can result in numerous misinterpretations especially in a translation
that
sought a common meaning in different cultural settings. Unfortunately,
this is
one of the recognized shortcomings of an otherwise very readable
translation.
Thus, "produce" to a TE has a greatly different meaning to many
different
people, and I might add to what the evidence shows that the original
Hebrew
manuscripts said.
>Genesis 1:11 (NIV) Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:
>seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it,
>according to their various kinds." And it was so.
>Here God did not directly create the vegetation. He commanded the LAND to
>produce it. This indirect creation of vegetation is exactly what a
>theistic evolutionist believes happened. The bible supports such an
>interpretation.
>Genesis 1:24 (NIV) And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures
>according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground,
>Once again, God used an indirect agency, the land, to bring forth life.
The NAS translates Genesis 1:11"Let the earth sprout vegetation...."
which
affirms a creative non-TE model very well. I checked several other
translations
and found the following usages... "burst forth", "put forth", "support"
,
and "bring forth"
In fact the Hebrew word for the word translated as "produce" (NIV) is
"dasha"
and is more correctly translated in this verse as "to sprout", and not
creation
by evolution.
My home garden "brings forth" (produces) vegetables, but it does not
create
them.
In Genesis 1:24 the NAS translates the verse as ""Let the earth "bring
forth"
living creatures..."" which is clarified in verse 25 "And God made
(Hebrew
"asah"... to do or make) the beasts of the earth..."
Here is the downfall of your reliance on the NIV "produce". The Hebrew
word
used in 1:24 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORD altogether!... "yatsa"!
"Yatsa" is used in a great variety of applications, both literally and
figuratively,
direct and proximate (as in direction or relationship of position) and
implies
"to go out" and "bring forth, out and up". Verse 25 invalidates your
assertion
that the land produced animals when taken in the original textual
context
of v. 24.