> snip...
>
> You make a terrible mistake. miyn does means 'sort'
> but it does NOT mean Īspecies'. Species is a concept
> developed by Linne in the 1700's. Genesis 1:24 talks
> about creeping things which some believe are insects
> and reptiles and they are not one species. They are
> of various kinds.
>
So The Bible can't speak of concepts unless they are
known to the writers?? It appears that you forgot who
dictated the narrative.
Since you donāt believe me take a look at the work of William Wilson ĪOld
Testament Word Studiesā. Then there is Strongsā work as well on words.
Youāll find a tough time getting these men to agree with your take on this
word. As Wilson describes the word in hebrew translated Īkindā to mean:
species, form, kind, sort. And Strong Īsort i.e. speciesā.
>
> So please explain to me the fact that NO living mammalian species is found
> in rocks older than the Miocene. And only two species of fossilized living
> mammals are found in Miocene rocks. In all rocks lying underneath the
> Miocence there is no living mammal found as a fossil If those animals
> lived in the original pre-flood world, why are they not found earlier in
> the flood rocks? Don't give me the ecological zonation view of Whitcomb
> and Morris because there are lots of mammals found earlier, just not living
> mammals. Thus it would seem that the world did create animals after the
> 5th day, or maybe you should consider my views.
>
Actually I meant to say the 6th day since that is the day that the animals
are made by God.
On your questions, youāll have to take your case with the being who
dictated the narrative.
After the sixth day, you can't find other instance except Jonah where
another animal type was created. And in Jonahās case God prepared a fish.
As a matter of fact Gen 2:1-2 ĪThus the heavens and the earth were
completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the
work He had been doing; son on the seventh day He rested from all His work.ā
So letās see, God made animals, man and then He rests. That is the
Biblical record. That is what I read, plain and simple.
>
> Well yes the bible does specifically forbid such
> activities. I see that it has been a long time since
> you have read Exodus.
>
> Exodus 20:14 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
>
> Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever
> looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed
> adultery with her already in his heart.
>
> So now that I have shown you that the Bible does rule
> out Clinton's behavior, please tell me where the Bible
> rules out evolution.
> It is quite a telling point that you can't show that
> to be a Biblical doctrine from a clear statement in
> scripture. What has happened is that Christians have
> read anti-evolutionism INTO the Scripture. They are
> adding to Scripture.
>
Well talking of making a series of assumptions here. Adultery is sexual
encounter where one of the participants is married. Where does this
leaves the single folk? And how do you know I meant married versus single
in this scenario?
Secondly, who was speaking of the leader of the free world? I was just
using a current theme but never even hinted a any specific person.
Thirdly nobody is reading anti nothing in Scripture. Because the
narrative doesn't have a predetermined sequence of words, Morton
interprets that to mean it didn't happen. When these sequence of words do
not exists as Glenn wants them, then he claims the words do not really mean
what is plainly there, but rather something else. After all, this old
Biblical hebrew language had poor English translators writing the english
version.
Lastly, I keep showing you verses but they are ignored. Another example
is found in Isaiah 44:24 & 45:12 ĪI Am the Lord, who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.
It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands
stretched out the heavens;ā
God is a hands on type of being. When I read Genesis that God made the
animals after their kinds and that He formed out of the ground all the
beasts of the field, I donāt see any wiggle room for you to insert Īonly
through evolution could this happenā.
For you to insert this logic, you turn to outside sources. Bible
interprets Bible. Basic rule of hermeneutics. This isnāt a theological
list otherwise we could expand to see what type of being God is. Does he
operates in a sphere with errors or dead end streets ? Or is He a being
who operates in a realm where everything has a purpose and mission?
>
> The above is silly. God didn't command the land to produce legs, and He
> didn't command the earth to produce spleens. He commanded it to produce
> animals (completed animals) of various kinds.
>
What is silly is you stating that the land produced animals and totally
ignoring the latter part of the verse where it says that God made animals.
You take the first half verbatim and make your case and then take the
second portion of the verse where it says that God made the animals and
claim that what it really means is that God used evolution to generate the
animals.
And then accuse me of inserting thought/views into Scripture.
> I notice that it is YOUR authority which makes this claim. Since I don't
> believe that you are divinely inspired please show this to me from
> Scripture! I only recognize the authority of Scripture not Dario.
>
No my authority but the english language that I'm reading. It says that
God said 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock...according to its kind...God made...the livestock according to
their kinds'.
I read that God is making livestock according to their kinds(sort). You
interpret the same passage as God is using macro evolution to make
livestock which is really adding your notion to the narrative.
> Show me where the Bible says, "Morphological form is immutable" or
> "Animals can only give rise to animals exactly like themselves."
> If that were true, then I am not my parent's child.
Am I to understand you saying that given enough generations, my cows may
give horses as offsprings?
>
> Please show me from scripture where it says that species boundaries can't
> be crossed. I think you are addint a tradition of man to the Bible, just
> as the Pharisees added their traditions, YECs are insistent on making the
> Bible say what it doesn't say. Show me from Scripture. Show me the
> statement where GOD says 'evolution is impossible.'
>
Will God forbid His people from cross-breeding species to have Him do it?
Again we must look at Who are talking about. God donāt demand one thing
from us and then turns around and does the exact thing He forbids us.
And as I told you before. I hold the position that nobody, and I mean
nobody, knows the age of earth and length of time the creation took place.
I donāt hold to the view that macro-evolution was the mechanism used by
God to bring about the animal kingdom and humans.
I believe the Genesis narrative was dictated from Godās point of view
rather than mans. I donāt believe in the literal 24 hour days because if
that is the case then the first 3 days were 24 hours without a sun/moon in
the heavens.
I hold that God isnāt constrained by the laws of nature before us and He
has chosen at different points in time to intervene rendering some of this
laws null hence the term supernatural events.
And I have been blessed by being allowed to witnessed some pretty awesome
demonstrations of this power such as seeing eyes being formed inside empty
eye orbits that made this person a seeing being after 40 years of darkness.
I donāt doubt too many things as they are laid out in the Biblical
narrative. I have seen the power of the being behind it all.
Maybe you have confused with somebody else so donāt label me yec, oec or
the other one of your acronyms.
>
> See my web page "Theory for Creationist. I accept that God created man
> from dust. I don't accept the insertion of soul theory that most
> evolutionists accept.
>
> I would also point out that the word 'dust' in Genesis 2:7 may not mean
dirt.
>
> 6083. 'aphar, aw-fawr'; from H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence
> clay,
> earth, mud:--ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish.
>
> It might mean ashes, or rubbish. A corpse is rubbish.
>
Does it really make any difference where the material was dust or dirt?
Are we so hung up on these details?
For me suffice it to say that God formed man from earth. Whether it was
dust or clay, to use one of your expressions, itās irrelevant.
>
> That is exactly what the Theistic evolutionist believes. God put into
> nature the ability to produce life. Why can you make this claim and then
> say that God COULDN"T have imparted to the universe the ability to evolve
> the life forms God wanted? Do you have a double standard?
>
I havenāt say that. I wrote that as I read Genesis, I donāt see any
wiggle room between words to insert your theories of macro evolutionary paths.
Your theories are interesting to ponder, but they donāt fit. They only fit
in a loose interpretational world with a lot of room to change word
meanings, big assumptions and a lot of ifs.
>
> so show me the clear and straightforward verse in the Bible that says that
> evolution is impossible.
>
I have shown you verses where it says that God Himself with His hands
created the earth.
I donāt know about you, but when somebody tells me that they build a table
with their own hands from scratch, I believe they took the wood, measure it
twice, cut it once, drove the nails/applied the glue and made the thing.
Now I can chose to believe his statement or come up with another ideas on
how the table came to be in his house because it is impossible to get that
type of shine at his own shop or the cuts are too perfect.
But what he told me was that he built the table. Anything else I may want
to add its speculation.
> >From my web page:
> >>>Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in His
> image".
> During this time, there was among the physical ancestor of man a very rare
> mutation -- a chromosomal fusion. But this error was almost always fatal.
> God took one of these reatures, a still born, fixed him, and blew his
> breath into him. Why do I have God make Adam in this fashion? Because
> of what God said when Adam sinned. If you remember the verse Genesis
> 3:19 God said, "for dust you are and to dust you shall return."
My dear Glenn, dust of the earth is now equated with an fatal error in a
chromosomal fusion? You are right, one must do a lot of assuming.
Did you happen to see Gen 2:7 ĪThe Lord God formed the man from the dust of
the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became
a living being.ā(NIV)
> A dead body is "dust." Adam came from dust and to dust he now will
> return.
And dust of the earth is dust too.
>
> Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider this.
> If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the living
> Adam 'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to dust you will
> return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being and so the
> dust does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that when Adam
> died he would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust).
>
> Thus Adam was created from the product of a chromosomal fusion. This
> allows us to explain the existence of the pseudogene; something no other
> Biblical interpretation which believes in a specially created Adam can
> explain. But Adam was alone. He had not evolved in the normal fashion
> and so there was no population of creatures like him with whom he could
> mate. He also could not talk. Adam's physical parent could not talk and so
> he could not learn from them. God taught Adam to speak. That is what God
> was doing when he brought all the animals to Adam. <<<
>
Now this is very interesting reading on the surface it appears to make a
lot of sense. It solves many difficult passages in Genesis to have this
non-human creatures moving about the earth.
Now will these creatures be cro-magnon types? After all by this time
neanderthal have gone into extinction. Now how does Eve factors in here?
Did she came from a rib or another of these non-human creatures.
On the speech part, didnāt a jackass spoke to the prophet when he tried to
disobey God. Who taught the jackass to speak?
Remember those miracles of Jesus and His disciples of paralyzed persons?
They all stood up and left walking or jumping. How does a human walk like
that without going through some therapy?
As I sated before, when God intervenes no help is needed to complete His
task. He speaks and things happen ĪFor He spoke, and it came to be; He
commanded, and it stood firm.ā Psl. 33:9
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo