Holding their feet to the fire ...

[Jorge]

Well, I will definitely have to do more research so I can see what these major differences are.



I did go and look into your timeline. I found it to be somewhat inaccurate with regard to the order of events that I found from other sources on the subject. If you look here, here, and here you will see there was quite a bit that was left out of AIG's timeline. The chronology from those links I supplied seem to be much more accurate with what I already know of Evolution.

I do indeed accept the Bible's account of events. I just still have not seen where there are many inconsistencies with it's version of events and what Evolution has to say about it. Seems very compatible to me.

As for death and man, I have not look into that. But it is of course a big one. I will have to do further study on that question.



Yes. Sorry again. I know that each question of mine is not something that can be answered quickly. But you have been patient and helped me out in understanding where you are coming from .

I think it is the reason why God gave us science and laws of nature. Scripture and science (God's natural laws) I feel go hand in hand without much need to haggle over much. Those things we do not really understand yet, will be made known to us sooner or later. When they are, I think we will see how science and the Scriptures are even more compatible.

By all means, do more research - I WANT you to do more research.

Never forget that prayer (for seeking guidance from God) and intellectual honesty are the two most important factors for arriving at the Truth in this matter.

You have what I've provided so I'll leave you with a few resources that will prove invaluable in your search: See sites for Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research and TrueOrigins. Between those four sites there are multiple thousands (no exaggeration) of articles, videos, presentations and so on that address and answer most questions that may occur to you. There are other sites but those will be more than enough to get you there assuming you genuinely wish to arrive.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Um, Jorge? The vast majority of those things you listed aren't part of what evolution says but rather is what various scientific disciplines completely independent of evolution has revealed.

This reveals something that I have noted before -- YECs of Jorge's stripe don't just have a problem with evolution, they have a problem with science in general.

They don't like biology and genetics because they provide evidence that demonstrates evolution. Same thing for botany and zoology. These YECs hate geology and paleontology because they provide evidence that demonstrates that the earth is incredibly ancient. Similarly, they detest astronomy and cosmology because they provide evidence that demonstrates that the universe is even far more ancient. And these YECs loathe physics because it provides the means of dating things and demonstrating that both are older than YEC dogma allows.

Perhaps one day, these folks will finally open their eyes and realize that the creation accounts aren't meant to conveying a science lesson. As the renown Old Testament scholar and expert on Genesis, John H. Walton, states in his "Lost World of Genesis One"

If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology.

Once again you demonstrate either your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty.
Are you or are you not a Theistic Evolutionist?

If you are a Theistic Evolutionist (which I know you are) then you believe in the column labeled "Evolution" and not in the column labeled "Genesis". So why are you acting as if this weren't true? Why are you using Clinton-speak to disguise your true position and agenda?

You may get that past some people, but in me you've met your Waterloo.

Jorge

[Jorge]

No, of course not. But in this instance the evidence both morphological and genetic indicates that he was correct.


Given the YEC propensity to characterize this as some sort of "Darwinist" plot I was making sure that it was clear that it is most definitely not the case. The fact is that the idea comes squarely from the creationist camp from someone who wasn't on the fringe but held in high regard.


Again, as I already noted the evidence continues to reveal that Linnaeus wasn't being "s-t-o-o-p-i-d and w-r-o-n-g" but was indeed correct.

Okay, ape-man .. you've managed to convince me - you are an APE!

Jorge

[shunyadragon]

Couldn't agree more, Shunyadragon. Though the only thing I would caution is putting forth the idea that the ancients didn't have a pretty firm grasp of natural laws or how they worked. Human history has taught us a lot of them were brilliant and knew more than we thought . It's the reason why I find the Bible (and other ancient documents) to be so compatible with what we know in science.

I do not underestimate the intelligence and science of the ancients, but nonetheless their world view was limited, especially at the time Genesis and the Pentateuch. One ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius (1st century BC)who showed amazing insight into the physical nature of our universe even to the point of proposing our earth and sun including life was not unique in the universe. The problem remains concerning the conflicts and contradictions of those who reject science and live in fear of conspiracies and out of touch with reality.

[klaus54]

Only if you think that its purpose is to convey a science lesson.

As I have said previously, IMHO the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) is best viewed as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis. This means that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details like who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. In Genesis 1:16 the Sun and Moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as “two great luminaries” or “two great lights.” The Sun and Moon were deified by the neighboring people but here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.










1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

Perzactily!

My post was aimed at YEC ideologists like Jorge and his gang.

K54

[klaus54]

Couldn't agree more, Shunyadragon. Though the only thing I would caution is putting forth the idea that the ancients didn't have a pretty firm grasp of natural laws or how they worked. Human history has taught us a lot of them were brilliant and knew more than we thought . It's the reason why I find the Bible (and other ancient documents) to be so compatible with what we know in science.

They had an understanding of the basics -- the need and sources of food, the need to reproduce, the understanding that the Sun rises and sets, that there are seasons.

And communications of God to those folks would have to be accommodated to their knowledge. And, BTW to us today!!

You know, phenomenology and all that jazz.

K54

[rogue06]

Well then the first Genesis story is WRONG from a cursory study of Creation itself, ain't it?!

K54

Only if you think that its purpose is to convey a science lesson.

As I have said previously, IMHO the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) is best viewed as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis. This means that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details like who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. In Genesis 1:16 the Sun and Moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as “two great luminaries” or “two great lights.” The Sun and Moon were deified by the neighboring people but here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.










1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

[Jesse]

You're welcome.

And I hope you don't interpret my incisive sarcasm in pursuit of truth as me being a mean nasty person.

I'm actually very cuddly in real life.

K54

Lol. No not at all! I would never think that. I can get that way too if someone annoys me too much . Human nature and all that. I will take your word on the cuddly part .

[Jesse]

I think this post in 'why not deep time?' is relevant here, holding the feet of those who are not willing to accept science to the fire. I smell bacon burning!!

The science of deep time, quantum Mechanics and evolution all depend on the Law of non-contradiction of objective observation concerning the nature of our physical existence. The principle of the uniformity and consistency of our universe is also firmly grounded in the Law of non-contradiction. If one believes in God, I do, the Law of non-contradiction would lead one naturally to the conclusion that God Created our physical existence uniform and consistent, and according to the scientific processes and natural history of our physical existence..

The argument that the Bible, could be interpreted as there existing 'deep time' of billions of years instead of the literal 7 days of genesis is plausible, but 'could be interpreted' is Tuesday morning quarterbacking of the failures and successes of the weekend football games. It is problematic to try and make sense and force fit ancient literature by jerry rigging it to fit contemporary science. It fails to deal with the bottom line issues that: (1) Those that wrote these ancient texts of the Tanakh believed them to be literally true. (2) Those that wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and based their view of God, Creation, and their relationship to God on it being true. (3) Doctrine and Dogma over the Millennia is based on them being literally true.

Trying to make things fit from ancient literature to modern knowledge requires rational humanist revisionism, and in religion, scripture and the claim of Revelation will trump it every time. The result is more different churches.

Fideism anyone? along with the baggage of logical contradictions that go with it!

Couldn't agree more, Shunyadragon. Though the only thing I would caution is putting forth the idea that the ancients didn't have a pretty firm grasp of natural laws or how they worked. Human history has taught us a lot of them were brilliant and knew more than we thought . It's the reason why I find the Bible (and other ancient documents) to be so compatible with what we know in science.

[klaus54]

Thanks for the warm welcome, Klaus54. I must say, it has been pretty fun conversing with all of you.

You're welcome.

And I hope you don't interpret my incisive sarcasm in pursuit of truth as me being a mean nasty person.

I'm actually very cuddly in real life.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the warm welcome, Klaus54. I must say, it has been pretty fun conversing with all of you.

I think this post in 'why not deep time?' is relevant here, holding the feet of those who are not willing to accept science to the fire. I smell bacon burning!!

The science of deep time, quantum Mechanics and evolution all depend on the Law of non-contradiction of objective observation concerning the nature of our physical existence. The principle of the uniformity and consistency of our universe is also firmly grounded in the Law of non-contradiction. If one believes in God, I do, the Law of non-contradiction would lead one naturally to the conclusion that God Created our physical existence uniform and consistent, and according to the scientific processes and natural history of our physical existence..

The argument that the Bible, could be interpreted as there existing 'deep time' of billions of years instead of the literal 7 days of genesis is plausible, but 'could be interpreted' is Tuesday morning quarterbacking of the failures and successes of the weekend football games. It is problematic to try and make sense and force fit ancient literature by jerry rigging it to fit contemporary science. It fails to deal with the bottom line issues that: (1) Those that wrote these ancient texts of the Tanakh believed them to be literally true. (2) Those that wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and based their view of God, Creation, and their relationship to God on it being true. (3) Doctrine and Dogma over the Millennia is based on them being literally true.

Trying to make things fit from ancient literature to modern knowledge requires rational humanist revisionism, and in religion, scripture and the claim of Revelation will trump it every time. The result is more different churches.

Fideism anyone? along with the baggage of logical contradictions that go with it!

[klaus54]

No problem. In one way or another I've been at this for over four decades and counting. Of course, that doesn't mean much because I could have my own personal agenda and be wrong about this or that. You have to do your own research and meditations and prayer. Assuming that you do this diligently and honestly (next to prayer seeking for guidance, honesty is the most important element in your quest), in the end you will find that I haven't lied nor exaggerated on any point.





I agree with what you say about the definition that I use for "distortion". It is a definition that I have fashioned and customized over time ("customized" to apply specifically to the Creation-Evolution debate). Even though it is my own, if you research many dictionaries and sources you will find that it is reasonable. I've merely generalized the concept of "distortion". As for your last two questions above ...

The first is easy to answer: Just pick up your Bible (hopefully a A1611KJV but NASB, NIV, NKJV will be suitable here) and read the creation history in Genesis. Here is a bit of what you run into (there are many more, these are just to give you the idea):


Evolution......................................Genesis
Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
Death before man.............................Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun


As I said, these are just a few of many more. So YOU have to decide: do you accept the Bible's acccount or do you reject it? The BIGGIE in this list is death before man versus man before death. Theologically, that is a MAJOR issue - insurmountable, actually. See the following link for more details and facts:
https://answersingenesis.org/why-doe...vents-matters/

Your second question is harder to answer, especially in a comprehensive manner. It involves understanding - within the framework of orthodox Christian theology - what exegesis and eisegesis are, what hermeneutics is, the introduction of extra-biblical data, the role of language and translation and other relevant topics.

Essentially the aim is to obtain from the Scripture precisely what God intended - nothing more and nothing less. An honest grammatical-historical approach where Scripture is almost-exclusively used to interpret Scripture has been proven to be the proper approach. This had been the gold-standard for centuries, until an "enlightened, modern/post-modern" world started taking over. Then vain philosophies, revisionism, "Scientism" and other perversions entered the scene - it's been swirling down into the toilet ever since. Out of time ... got'ta go.

Jorge

Well then the first Genesis story is WRONG from a cursory study of Creation itself, ain't it?!

K54

[Jesse]

BTW -- Jesse, welcome to the Natural Science Forum!

It's one wacky ride -- and kinda fun if you can take it.

K54

Thanks for the warm welcome, Klaus54. I must say, it has been pretty fun conversing with all of you.

[Jesse]

No problem. In one way or another I've been at this for over four decades and counting. Of course, that doesn't mean much because I could have my own personal agenda and be wrong about this or that. You have to do your own research and meditations and prayer. Assuming that you do this diligently and honestly (next to prayer seeking for guidance, honesty is the most important element in your quest), in the end you will find that I haven't lied nor exaggerated on any point.

Well, I will definitely have to do more research so I can see what these major differences are.

I agree with what you say about the definition that I use for "distortion". It is a definition that I have fashioned and customized over time ("customized" to apply specifically to the Creation-Evolution debate). Even though it is my own, if you research many dictionaries and sources you will find that it is reasonable. I've merely generalized the concept of "distortion". As for your last two questions above ...

The first is easy to answer: Just pick up your Bible (hopefully a A1611KJV but NASB, NIV, NKJV will be suitable here) and read the creation history in Genesis. Here is a bit of what you run into (there are many more, these are just to give you the idea):


Evolution......................................Gen esis
Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
Death before man.............................Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun


As I said, these are just a few of many more. So YOU have to decide: do you accept the Bible's account or do you reject it? The BIGGIE in this list is death before man versus man before death. Theologically, that is a MAJOR issue - insurmountable, actually. See the following link for more details and facts:
https://answersingenesis.org/why-doe...vents-matters/

I did go and look into your timeline. I found it to be somewhat inaccurate with regard to the order of events that I found from other sources on the subject. If you look here, here, and here you will see there was quite a bit that was left out of AIG's timeline. The chronology from those links I supplied seem to be much more accurate with what I already know of Evolution.

I do indeed accept the Bible's account of events. I just still have not seen where there are many inconsistencies with it's version of events and what Evolution has to say about it. Seems very compatible to me.

As for death and man, I have not look into that. But it is of course a big one. I will have to do further study on that question.

Your second question is harder to answer, especially in a comprehensive manner. It involves understanding - within the framework of orthodox Christian theology - what exegesis and eisegesis are, what hermeneutics is, the introduction of extra-biblical data, the role of language and translation and other relevant topics.

Essentially the aim is to obtain from the Scripture precisely what God intended - nothing more and nothing less. An honest grammatical-historical approach where Scripture is almost-exclusively used to interpret Scripture has been proven to be the proper approach. This had been the gold-standard for centuries, until an "enlightened, modern/post-modern" world started taking over. Then vain philosophies, revisionism, "Scientism" and other perversions entered the scene - it's been swirling down into the toilet ever since. Out of time ... got'ta go.

Yes. Sorry again. I know that each question of mine is not something that can be answered quickly. But you have been patient and helped me out in understanding where you are coming from .

I think it is the reason why God gave us science and laws of nature. Scripture and science (God's natural laws) I feel go hand in hand without much need to haggle over much. Those things we do not really understand yet, will be made known to us sooner or later. When they are, I think we will see how science and the Scriptures are even more compatible.

[rogue06]

Evolution......................................Genesis
Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
Death before man.............................Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun

Um, Jorge? The vast majority of those things you listed aren't part of what evolution says but rather is what various scientific disciplines completely independent of evolution has revealed.

This reveals something that I have noted before -- YECs of Jorge's stripe don't just have a problem with evolution, they have a problem with science in general.

They don't like biology and genetics because they provide evidence that demonstrates evolution. Same thing for botany and zoology. These YECs hate geology and paleontology because they provide evidence that demonstrates that the earth is incredibly ancient. Similarly, they detest astronomy and cosmology because they provide evidence that demonstrates that the universe is even far more ancient. And these YECs loathe physics because it provides the means of dating things and demonstrating that both are older than YEC dogma allows.

Perhaps one day, these folks will finally open their eyes and realize that the creation accounts aren't meant to conveying a science lesson. As the renown Old Testament scholar and expert on Genesis, John H. Walton, states in his "Lost World of Genesis One"

If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology.