O, what a typo can do!

[Etritonakin]

Just as a small error in one line of code can cause a rocket to explode......

The Explosion of the Ariane 5

...so a simple mis-reading of the first lines of Genesis has led to most of the controversy between evolution and creationism.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"

Many on any side of the controversy believe what follows is an explanation of this (perhaps the single most vague) statement, but -given what the definitions of the words which follow allow, and in the context of all other scripture -these things preceded that which follows.

God created the heavens and the earth in an unspecified manner -and in an unspecified amount of time.

THEN.... The earth BECAME or HAD BECOME formless and void/waste and ruin -by an unspecified (at least here) cause and to an unspecified degree.

The word usually translated "was" in "the earth was formless and void" not only CAN be translated "became" or "had become", but SHOULD be -based on other scriptures describing things which happened before and after.

At the very least, that allows for any amount of time prior to the events of Genesis, a slowly-forming earth and life on Earth (even humanoid/human) prior to the events of Genesis and the creation of the first man specifically made in the image of God, with the potential to live forever.

There is also no biblical basis for the belief that creativity/creation and evolution are opposing ideas, but more on that in another thread...

 

[David T]

Just as a small error in one line of code can cause a rocket to explode......

The Explosion of the Ariane 5

...so a simple mis-reading of the first lines of Genesis has led to most of the controversy between evolution and creationism.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"

Many on any side of the controversy believe what follows is an explanation of this (perhaps the single most vague) statement, but -given what the definitions of the words which follow allow, and in the context of all other scripture -these things preceded that which follows.

God created the heavens and the earth in an unspecified manner -and in an unspecified amount of time.

THEN.... The earth BECAME or HAD BECOME formless and void/waste and ruin -by an unspecified (at least here) cause and to an unspecified degree.

The word usually translated "was" in "the earth was formless and void" not only CAN be translated "became" or "had become", but SHOULD be -based on other scriptures describing things which happened before and after.

At the very least, that allows for any amount of time prior to the events of Genesis, a slowly-forming earth and life on Earth (even humanoid/human) prior to the events of Genesis and the creation of the first man specifically made in the image of God, with the potential to live forever.

There is also no biblical basis for the belief that creativity/creation and evolution are opposing ideas, but more on that in another thread...

Forum violation! yOu are trying to make sense. THAT CLEARLY IS NOT ALLOWED.

 

[Revoltingest]

A typo in a translation of a translation of the myths of
bronze age goat herders could indeed lead to inaccuracy.

 

[ecco]

...so a simple mis-reading of the first lines of Genesis has led to most of the controversy between evolution and creationism.

...and if Marcion had won out, we wouldn't be having these discussions at all.

Today's Christians would be laughing at people who put any store into the writings of ancient Jewish goat herders.

 

[Etritonakin]

...and if Marcion had won out, we wouldn't be having these discussions at all.

Today's Christians would be laughing at people who put any store into the writings of ancient Jewish goat herders.

His ideas were apparently the result of a similarly-unnecessary conflict between his own ideas about God in the Old Testament vs the New Testament.
God has not changed. Turning goat-herders into gods who could be trusted with the entire creation and creating from them the government of the future required different things at different times.
Telling someone to go, turn right, then left, then go up, then go down, then stop is no conflict -it's just how you get from point A to point B.

The idea that God would be harsh when necessary/more so in the early stages and gentle when necessary is all over the Old Testament. It's not a matter of being a believer, but of reading the scriptures thoroughly.

Back again to the forum topic.... There is also much in the bible to suggest (if not plainly stated) that God is all about evolution. (I plan to make a thread about it soon)

 

[sun rise]

Source is one thing. Translation is another. Third is taking the words as we read them in a literal way that satisfies our egos needs while ignoring symbolic reading.

In the beginning, God created the seed of the big bang (and so forth), for example. And God said, let the big bang happen and there was the light of that almighty explosion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is also no biblical basis for the belief that creativity/creation and evolution are opposing ideas

Disagree.

The biblical account would be directed (teleological) evolution if evolution were inserted into its creation story, a process where a god guided mutations so that man would eventually arise - very different from Darwin's theory which posits random mutation and natural selection. There is no creativity in blind natural processes.

Darwin's naturalistic theory and biblical creation can't both be correct at once.

 

[Etritonakin]

Disagree.

The biblical account would be directed (teleological) evolution if evolution were inserted into its creation story, a process where a god guided mutations so that man would eventually arise - very different from Darwin's theory which posits random mutation and natural selection. There is no creativity in blind natural processes.

Darwin's naturalistic theory and biblical creation can't both be correct at once.

Disagree (unless Darwin specified that God was not/could not have been involved at any point -and not just that popular ideas about Genesis could not be true. Most of the controversy is based on such rather than what the bible actually says and allows for -and I am very surprised that those who want to put down young earth creationism have not worked that angle more).

Consider the fact that both blind (themselves) processes AND our own creative influence on those processes have affected life forms which now exist -sometimes purposefully so.
Darwin himself would be an example of one not blind to blind processes -and able to guide them.
We may purposefully set in motion processes which are, themselves, blind.

Darwin himself may not have considered God (though his relative did when first using the term evolution to describe creation), but he also did not work back to the creation of the heavens and earth -and the elements which once did not exist and conveniently self-assemble into physical life under the right circumstances. The God of the bible -declaring the end from the beginning -would certainly have had man in mind from the beginning -especially as he made the entire creation so that it could be inherited by Christ and his "many brethren" of the children of God.

It is written that men have not imagined the "glory" which awaits them as children of God -in the heavens which are specified were "formed to be inhabited" -which may well include planets teeming with infinitely-diverse life forms which exist by blind processes initiated by the non-blind.

Though Adam was apparently directly created -and Eve from his material -Cain went out from a place where four people dwelt and found a wife in Nod. He was also afraid that any who found him would kill him. There are also many other verses which support an old earth and a non-waste-and-ruin state before the events of Genesis -such as Lucifer/Satan (bright star then destroyer) having ascended above the heights of the clouds with a third of the angels which "kept not their first estate" to attempt a coup against God -then being cast back down to Earth -AFTER which he influenced Adam and Eve in Eden.

The bible does allow for the time necessary for the evolution we see has taken place -and must have taken place long before 6,000 years ago (when Adam was created and the earth renewed).
It also states that the creatures made in Genesis were "after" their "kind" -and does NOT specify whether or not they were based on creatures which "evolved" previously. Just as Eve was from Adam's material, so could they have been based on those which had already developed.
There is an account in the bible of someone putting specific animals together to get certain traits in offspring -so even those goat herders were not ignorant of such things at that level.

So... The bible is not inconsistent with element-based "blind" evolution, but specifies that there was a renewal after the Earth had eventually become waste and ruin to an unspecified degree (except that it required those things in Genesis -which do NOT describe the initial creation of the Earth -except in the very first verse. All else happens after it became waste and ruin). At that point, processes in motion would indeed have purposefully been affected.

 

[Etritonakin]

Disagree.

The biblical account would be directed (teleological) evolution if evolution were inserted into its creation story, a process where a god guided mutations so that man would eventually arise - very different from Darwin's theory which posits random mutation and natural selection. There is no creativity in blind natural processes.

Darwin's naturalistic theory and biblical creation can't both be correct at once.

To summarize, scripture allows for God creating the universe ("heavens"), "the worlds", the Earth (all specified to be "formed to be inhabited" in scripture) -including the atoms which then do their thing "blindly" under the right conditions to result in life forms -in an unspecified amount of time.

Genesis then states certain things happened after the earth had become waste and ruin to an unspecified degree -though it is specified that "making" lights, etc. "to" do certain things (not necessarily initial creation), tweaking the juxtaposition of some celestial bodies, separating water from land, and stocking the earth were involved in its renewal. When the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, they were already there.

So.. Unguided (apart from the creation of the elements, etc.) "evolution" could be/could have been happening everywhere in the universe -including earth -until the renewal of Earth in Genesis -in preparation for Adam's line (before which the bible places Lucifer and a third of the angels on Earth before they attempted their coup, were cast back down and restrained).

It is also possible for evolution to be tweaked at any point -as our own activities show.

 

[Etritonakin]

Source is one thing. Translation is another. Third is taking the words as we read them in a literal way that satisfies our egos needs while ignoring symbolic reading.

In the beginning, God created the seed of the big bang (and so forth), for example. And God said, let the big bang happen and there was the light of that almighty explosion.

True -as with anything -but if you are referring to anything I have written, I do try to avoid such and go by what is stated or allowed by the language used in the original language when possible.

I do consider possibilities based on what is allowed by the language, but try not to assign any meaning to the words simply to suit my own beliefs or ego.

God created the heavens and earth. Not adding to it, but being a true statement (not all believe so or have reason to believe so), what could be known about how it was done would be how it was done.

It is also more likely that that light which God let be (not specified to be the sun) was to illuminate specifically the focus of the context -which was the deep which darkness was upon/the earth as he worked -whatever it might have been.

Perhaps the assumption is that it is symbolic rather than simply extremely vague?

 

[Shad]

Just as a small error in one line of code can cause a rocket to explode......

The Explosion of the Ariane 5

...so a simple mis-reading of the first lines of Genesis has led to most of the controversy between evolution and creationism.

Nope it is the belief a vague set of verses which provide nothing better than "God did stuff and stuff happened" as if any sort of guide to cosmology and human development. Your error spotting just enables you to twist the biblical belief into something compatible with modern knowledge also known as cognitive dissonance

 

[Etritonakin]

Nope it is the belief a vague set of verses which provide nothing better than "God did stuff and stuff happened" as if any sort of guide to cosmology and human development. Your error spotting just enables you to twist the biblical belief into something compatible with modern knowledge also known as cognitive dissonance

Not what I did at all. Did not say it was a guide -just pointing out that the language allows for certain things. No twisting of it whatsoever. Acknowledging available options within definitions, yes -such as a word possibly meaning either was or had become.

It IS compatible with what is known thus far simply due to the definitions and rules of language and definitions of words.
However, it might also be compatible with some other ideas due to sheer vagueness.

It is also apparent from scripture that the popular beliefs of today are incompatible with the beliefs of the other writers who provide even more context. Even if those who wrote other books were just building on a myth, if they were referencing Genesis, obviously did not believe in a young earth, etc.

Much twisting has already been done over time -I'm actually trying to ignore it and read what is written as written.

I'm aware that what you are saying happens quite often -but you are incorrect if you think that is what I have done here.

Herein, I was pointing out that some on all sides of the controversy believe the bible says things which it simply does not -and does not allow for -considering the most original words possible, their definitions, context within the same book and in context with the entire collection of writings.