I am not sure I agree with your view of inspiration. I am not sure that
God dictated word for word, but I do think God inspired a true history.
Secondly, this assumes that you can read God's mind. How do you know that
God ultimately holds the same view of kind (i.e. an immutable beastie) that
you do? Maybe god believes in evolution and the kinds/species created are
more fluid than you allow? You seem to think you have a private pipeline
to God and know exactly what was in his mind. I would suggest you re-read
the latter part of Job.
>
>> 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, youâll have to take your case with the being who
>dictated the narrative.
While I know that God dictated the 10 commandments, I was unaware of any
biblical evidence that God actually dictated--word for word--the rest of
the Scripture. Why did none of the writers mention that God was doing
this? Why did Moses only acknowledge that God dictated one portion? Was
Moses plagiarizing God by refusing to acknowledge that God told him every
word to write in the Pentateuch?
>
>As a matter of fact Gen 2:1-2 ÎThus 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.â
so what do you make of the observed examples of polyploidy, where plants of
two different species produce an offspring which can't reproduce with
either parent species and thus is a new species unto itself. Who create
them? Are you saying that since God doesn't produce anything new since the
6th day, any new species are produced by the devil? There are lots of new
plants created even in this century.
>Lastly, I keep showing you verses but they are ignored. Another example
>is found in Isaiah 44:24 & 45:12 ÎI 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;â
This says nothing about the fixity of species.
>
>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 donât see any wiggle room for you to insert Îonly
>through evolution could this happenâ.
>
>For you to insert this logic, you turn to outside sources. Bible
>interprets Bible. Basic rule of hermeneutics. This isnât 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?
So do you believe that there is a solid dome over the earth? raqia is the
word for firmament. Do you believe that the sun goes around the earth?
Afterall according to your hemeneutics you would have to believe in
geocentrism.
>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.
>
God did create the animals--indirectly.
>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'.
Sorry but the Bible was written in Hebrew not English.
>
>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 donât demand one thing
>from us and then turns around and does the exact thing He forbids us.
Where does the Bible forbid cross-breeding? Your Bible must have a section
mine doesn't have.
>
>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 donât hold to the view that macro-evolution was the mechanism used by
>God to bring about the animal kingdom and humans.
While you may not hold to it, you are not the source of all knowledge. Show
me from Scripture a verse that says that evolution couldn't happen. I am
waiting.
>
>I believe the Genesis narrative was dictated from Godâs point of view
>rather than mans. I donât 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.
Wait a minute. I thought the Bible was supposed to interpret the Bible.
The word is Day. That is what all the other young-earthers say. But then
you are using logic (which is not taught in the Bible) to interpret the
Bible. I think you must then allow me to use extrabiblical information to
interpret the Bible also.
>> 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?
The entire problem with anti-evolutionary christianity is that they don't
want to deal with the details. Science works on the details.
>I havenât say that. I wrote that as I read Genesis, I donât see any
>wiggle room between words to insert your theories of macro evolutionary
paths.
>
>Your theories are interesting to ponder, but they donât 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.
but I simply don't see the Bible teaching anti-evolutionism as you seem to
imply. And the fact that you can't find a single verse to support your
theological position, seems to illustrate my point quite well.
>
>>
>> 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.
God did create the earth. But then He commanded the LAND and WATER to bring
forth life. Life is not equivalent with the earth.
>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 ÎThe 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.â(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.
Agreed.
>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.
Why do you say this? I believe that Adam was a lot longer ago than the
Neanderthals.
> Now how does Eve factors in here?
>Did she came from a rib or another of these non-human creatures.
Eve came from Adam's rib just as taught.
>
>On the speech part, didnât a jackass spoke to the prophet when he tried to
>disobey God. Who taught the jackass to speak?
God. So if God can teach a jackass to speak why can't he teach an ape?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm