I absolutely disagree with you here, Dario. The observational evidence of
those standing there would require that Laz arose. Those who had wrapped
his body would know that he was cold, clamy, eyes non-responsive and having
some rigor mortis. The stench of the tomb would confirm the death. Then
the observation that Lazarus walked out of the grave would have to be
considered proof that he arose.
>
>> 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.
That is irrelevant. I don't think the Bible teaches against evolution, you
do. Please prove that your belief about what the Bible is true. I have
offered my evidence (the lack of a statement ruling evolution out) you
haven't provided anything except your belief that the Bible teaches against
evolution. What is your evidence for your belief?
>
>> 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' ?
I understand it to mean 'of various kinds'. If I send you to the store to
get vegetables 'after their kind' you don't understand me to have spoken
about the reproductive capacities of vegetables. You know I want an
assortment. If God creates or theland produces animals 'after their kind'
why do we insist on understanding this different than the above?
If the earth is to
>produce a dog after its kind, what does this mean to you ?
The Bible doesn't say the earth produced a 'dog after its kind'. It says
let the earth bring forth 'the beast of the earth' after his kind.'
>
>>
>> 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.
Genesis 1:20 is after Gensis 1:2. And it is then that the waters produce
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?
I don't know and it is irrelevant. Both seed and tree are the same
organism i.e. same species. If one creates one, then one explains the
creation of the other.
>> 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.
So do you accept every translation including the Jehovah Witness
translation of John 1:1 "In the Beginning was the word and the word was
with God and the word was a God."? Their scholars claim to be trained also.
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.
This is a red herring. English requires vowels, Hebrews didn't seem to use
them much.
>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?
Yes, and that is why I believe that God was directly involved in the
creation of man. Man is a miraculous creation AND a product of evolution
see my web page article Theory for Creationists.
Now why don't you go find me that statement that says "Animals can only
give birth to animals exactly like them"
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm