Greetings!
It has been a long time since I got involved with all of these sticky
points whether observational data agrees with Biblical interpretations
or not.
However there are a lot of instances where observational data doesn't
agree with scriptural narrative but this doesn't make the scriptures
false. One example is the situation where Jesus brings back to life
Lazarus after being dead for four days.
Observational data will conclude that this is impossible. After all,
the body have been decompossing for over 90 hours in the middle eastern
wheather. Actually the smell of rotting flesh was very strong when they
opened the tomb.
But it did happen, hence making the conclusions of those observing the
data before them, wrong.
> First, it is a fact that NOWHERE can one find a statement in Scripture that
> says
>
> 'Animals give rise to animals after their kind.'
>
> or 'Animals begat animals after their kind.'
By the same token you can't find one that says they didn't. If one is
going to engage in textual criticism, then one must apply the rules
evenly.
> By this I mean a statement with 'animals' as the subject and 'animals' as
> the object. Because of this lack, people who read into the Bible the claim
> that the Bible teaches fixity of form are quite mistaken. I have never had
> anyone show me a sentence like that above. You can prove me wrong by simply
> showing me the Scriptural statement with 'animals' as subject and object.
What do you understand by 'after its kind' ? If the earth is to
produce a dog after its kind, what does this mean to you ?
>
> Secondly, Evolution teaches that the earth and seas brought forth life.
> That is EXACTLY what Scripture says.
But you forgat one key piece of this puzzle: Gen 1:2 '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.' God was very
active in the post-creation event as His Spirit moved upon the water.
Looking at that word 'moved' in hebrew one will find that it has another
meaning. The same as a mother babying and caring for her child. These
events didn't just happen as billions of years went by when the correct
chemical formulations formed and aligned themselves generating the first
life.
> Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass,...
>
> Who brought forth the grass? The EARTH did--at God's command. God was not
> the subject ofthe above sentence so you can't say that God directly created
> the grass, He INDIRECTLY created the grass.
>
> Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass,...
>
> The earth is the active subject in the above claim.
So what came first, the apple seed or the apple tree in this scenario?
> Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
> after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
> his kind: and it was so.
>
> The earth once again brought forth the life. It was at God's command but
> exactly how that command was carried out is not specified. And notice that
> 'living creature after his kind' is followed by a list of various kinds of
> living creatures, 'cattle, creeping thing and beast. This shows that the
> phrase 'after his kind' has the meaning 'of various kinds.
>
> And while I am not a Hebrew expert, I would point out that the words "after
> his" are not actually in the Hebrew. The Hebrew simply says
>
> Genesis 1:24 "God said earth breakout breakout living breathing creature
> cattle creeping thing beast earth kind so."
>
> The English prepositions are filled in by the translator!
Here is where a person skilled and trained to read/understand ancient
languages can insert knowledge. In proto-hebrew no vowels are used
either but if one is to remove them from the english text, one finds
oneself with a literal translation that has no meaning whatsoever. That
is why YHVW is translated Jehovah. But the later word has more meaning
that the prior tetragammon.
> So, I would say that the only reason that English speaking peoples believe
> that evolution is ruled out by the Bible is due to the opinions of a
> translator in King Jimmy's day. I simply don't find it in the Scripture.
Well add to these guys the Spanish version too and this version came to
light in 1569 well before King James. So the only reason Spanish
speaking peoples believe that evolution is ruled out by The Bible is due
to the opinions of Casiodoro De Reina.
And Casiodoro De Reina got a lot of his text from the Alphonsine version
(a XIII century translation by a couple of Jewish translators in the
King Alphonse court).
And if one parallels King James and RV versions, one cannot detect any
major differences. Perhaps these men, many of them skilled in over a
dozen ancient languages and whom carried out their task as a labor of
love and in many instances danger of death over several years were all
mistaken.
But I doubt it.
One could weave a case where Gods' nature and character never mixes oxen
with horses, or tapirs with giraffes.
Lastly in the Biblical summation of the creation as described in chapter
two of Genesis, one can detect some interesting points (this technique
is used several times in The Scriptures where events are described in
different passages with different details highlighted).
One is that it describes God creation event as taking place in one day.
So The Bible views the creation as a single or multiple stepped event:
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens,
God creates every plant before it was in the earth. Interesting note
here. The tree came before the apple.
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused
it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the
ground.
God had his own irrigation system.
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole
face of the ground.
Here we see God forming man, giving him life and placing the same being
in the garden. Hardly room for evolutionary concepts here.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he
put the man whom he had formed.
Lastly we see God forming every living thing. He is the subject here,
isn't He?
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in
the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and
evil.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what
he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
creature, that was the name thereof.
Lastly I want to thank you and the rest of contributors of this list. I
read mostly everyday the postings and debates. These make so true
Paul's warning of getting involved in endless debates on issues that
nobody really knows the answers. I guess Jews did it with genealogies
and Greeks with the science of their day.
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington