• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Evolution

GrayHairedOne said:
I don't think that's true. The writer, in my mind, is saying:

During the first period of time, I did this....

During the second period of time, I did this....

, etc.

And then when all was said and done, I rested.

What is illogical about that?
Click to expand...

Because God works right through them, he only rests on the seventh period yet the writer divides God's schedule into seven. Why do you think that might be?
 
Conscious Bob said:
Because God works right through them, he only rests on the seventh period yet the writer divides God's schedule into seven. Why do you think that might be?
Click to expand...

I think simply it was because that was how many logical pieces it fell into when you broke it down. Are you thinking there is more significance to the number?
 
GrayHairedOne said:
I think simply it was because that was how many logical pieces it fell into when you broke it down. Are you thinking there is more significance to the number?
Click to expand...

Only that it's a direct reference to the number of days in the week.

Here's God's Work Report

Day One, created heavens, Earth and separated light from darkness.
Day Two, made vault to separate sky from water.
Day Three, gathered water in one place and dry land in another, created vegetation.
Day Four, created stars, sun and moon.
Day Five, created fish and birds.
Day Six, created land animals, man and appointed man the boss.
Day Seven, Rest

You say you can logically break these jobs down into seven periods I very much doubt you can.

Scientifically speaking the days are out of sequence. I read that workaround you came up with to explain why the stars, sun and moon appeared after the earth, dry land, seas and vegetation but that's not what the Bible says...
 
Ok let's take just the first couple verses to start with:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Does it say that he simply created the earth? No. It says he created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning. On the first day.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

So here, we are being told more about the setting. Now that this work has been done and the heavens and earth have been created, here's the status. The earth was a formless and empty void without anything much going for it. And the perspective of God is that he is close to the surface of the waters.

Are you with me so far? You can call it a workaround....but it seems like a very straightforward reading to me. If we can agree that this is a reasonable reading then we can go on from here. Otherwise, I'm probably at an impasse.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
Are you with me so far? You can call it a workaround....but it seems like a very straightforward reading to me. If we can agree that this is a reasonable reading then we can go on from here. Otherwise, I'm probably at an impasse.
Click to expand...

Here's my straightforward reading.

Light was created before the stars and the sun.

The Earth and it's plantlife is older than the stars and the sun.

Creating the heavens and the Earth took one day while creating fish, birds and land animals took two days.

Scientifically none of the above makes any sense but that's a conclusion you can draw from the Book of Genesis and it's chronological order.

You with me so far?
 
I don't look to the Bible to learn science. Any more than I look to my science books to learn religion.
I'm not sure why any convergence of the subjects is expected. Or any convergence of the discussion, either.
 
Last edited:
Conscious Bob said:
Or consistency.
Click to expand...
Or consistency, yes.
Looking down below, at the Similar Threads section on the screen, I see that a discussion of "Creation vs Evolution" was started nine years ago, going on ten. I've been in one too many of them, and they always seem to hang up on the same point -- some difference between a Biblical statement and current scientific understanding. I don't expect the Bible to change much -- even if science does advance and rearrange its own understanding of the universe from time to time -- so I don't expect the root of the discussions to change much either. But after a while they do get to seem the same.

There are other things, many other things, one might discuss about the Bible, but this is not that kind of forum. Too bad.
 
Conscious Bob said:
Here's my straightforward reading.

Light was created before the stars and the sun.

The Earth and it's plantlife is older than the stars and the sun.

Creating the heavens and the Earth took one day while creating fish, birds and land animals took two days.

Scientifically none of the above makes any sense but that's a conclusion you can draw from the Book of Genesis and it's chronological order.

You with me so far?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your straightforward reading. It's the most common view for sure. I was trying to explain mine by starting at the beginning and seeing if you could understand my viewpoint by stepping through it slowly. I don't think you are interested in hearing it though so I'll bow out. I agree with what someone else said....it's hard to rationally discuss these kinds of things on forums like this. Oh well.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
Yes, I understand your straightforward reading. It's the most common view for sure. I was trying to explain mine by starting at the beginning and seeing if you could understand my viewpoint by stepping through it slowly. I don't think you are interested in hearing it though so I'll bow out. I agree with what someone else said....it's hard to rationally discuss these kinds of things on forums like this. Oh well.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to step through it slowly, I've a fairly decent reading speed once I get going and I believe our discussion has been rational.

The account of creation in the Book of Genesis is short and straightforward, the writer never envisaged a time when science would disprove it as a hypothesis.

This creates a significant problem for anyone that tries to defend the Book of Genesis by trying to come up with all kinds of pseudo scientific constructs by means of explanation, they can't change the Bible.

Why should I take up the invitation to dismantle your superimposed construct when I can just go to the foundation and kick the whole thing down from there? Life's too short.
 
Last edited:
Ok no problem. You have clearly made up your mind so I'll just let it go.

As for the other person who asked about trying to reconcile religion with science....well, in my mind they must be reconciled. If my religion conflicts with science then it brings into question the entire honestly of being in that religion in the first place. At one point, I almost left my faith over this and other issues. But once I spent time really studying what the Bible says and not what people say it says....well, I came to my own conclusions which I'll just keep to myself for the moment.
 
Conscious Bob said:
Why should I take up the invitation to dismantle your superimposed construct when I can just go to the foundation and kick the whole thing down from there? Life's too short.
Click to expand...

Well put, Conscious Bob! That is exactly what so many people have as their objective in these so-called discussions.
 
Last edited:
Conscious Bob said:
It's the logical approach to any theory that can be disproved by evidence.
Click to expand...
Well, I have to agree with that too. That does seem to be the nature of almost any religious discussion -- trying to prove the other person wrong. Beats me why.
 
I never intended to try to prove anyone else wrong. I actually was simply stating that there is a way to look at Genesis that can be logically broken down where it does align with science. And then CB said he very much doubted that I could do so...which I guess I incorrectly took as him asking me to explain how I saw it.

I was hoping that by going through it step by step he could show me where the "flaw" in my logic is as he saw it. But instead he jumped to his deeply held belief that his view is the only possible correct view. The idea that you can destroy someones explanation by jumping to a conclusion about how they are going to get there ahead of time is somewhat offensive actually.

Usually I get frustrated by my fellow Christians for doing this.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
I was hoping that by going through it step by step he could show me where the "flaw" in my logic is as he saw it. But instead he jumped to his deeply held belief that his view is the only possible correct view. The idea that you can destroy someones explanation by jumping to a conclusion about how they are going to get there ahead of time is somewhat offensive actually.
Click to expand...

And here was me thinking you were letting this go... remember this?:

GrayHairedOne said:
Ok let's take just the first couple verses to start with:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Does it say that he simply created the earth? No. It says he created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning. On the first day.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

So here, we are being told more about the setting. Now that this work has been done and the heavens and earth have been created, here's the status. The earth was a formless and empty void without anything much going for it. And the perspective of God is that he is close to the surface of the waters.

Are you with me so far? You can call it a workaround....but it seems like a very straightforward reading to me. If we can agree that this is a reasonable reading then we can go on from here. Otherwise, I'm probably at an impasse.
Click to expand...

I invited you to break down The Book of Genesis logically into seven days not give me a longer winded version of your previous argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top