Skip to comments.In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created
Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
special thanks to hanna548 for the artwork
There is a disturbing trend that has taken hold of the modern day Christian community, and it is my opinion that this trend is causing a schism as big as the one that was addressed at the Council of Nicea over the Trinity. Now this is not a debate for those who have no faith in Christ, for what accord has Christ with Belial? No, this is strictly a debate for those who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, those who attempt to address the problem are usually labeled as rabble-rousers who only wish to spread discontent within the ranks of Christendom. This trend I speak of, is the compromising of the Word with the idea of evolution known as theistic evolution or Old Earth Creationism. I say compromise, because in the 150 years since Darwin offered his theory of evolution, the only side in the argument that has offered to compromise its position has been the Christian side. I have yet to see the evolutionary camp temper it's teachings to include God anywhere in the equation of creation.
If I am wrong, then I challenge someone to prove to me that the godless Darwinists have ever compromised their position on evolution. If anything they have stiffened their resolve to convert all mankind to their atheistic system that excludes a Creator other than random chance. The evolutionary thinkers are not struggling to find a way to harmonize the events of Genesis 1-11 with the words of Darwin or Stephen J. Gould. They are beating the drum of "science" versus "religion" so loud that they cannot hear the evidence that some Christian apologists would try to get them to consider. Too often, those who present any evidence that makes a case for the Biblical account of creation are even ridiculed by Christians who believe in theistic evolution. In many cases they are ridiculed in the same way the ungodly Darwinists ridicule them. Well allow me to present a few reasons why I do not have enough faith to believe in the OEC's theistic evolutionary theory.
As I said, my article is not directed at anyone who does not claim to be a Christian, so I will not be addressing the scientific or geological particulars of evolution or of space and time. This is strictly a debate between Christians who claim to be Biblical Young Earth Creationists, and Christians who hold to the views of Old Earth Creationism, Theistic evolutionism, or the Gap Theory. However, before I present my reasons why I believe these beliefs are all wrong, I must distinguish the difference between "Macro-Evolution", and "Micro- Evolution".
Micro-evolution is not really evolution at all, it is just the simple variation within a species. What scientists describe as the prominence of genes being displayed within that species. This is what allows a family to have one child with blond hair and blue eyes, while the other has brown hair and brown eyes. The children have not evolved (they are still human), they simply differ in their dominant genes. In like manner, Christian micro-evolutionists believe that all dogs in the world today have evolved within the species from two dogs Noah brought onto the Ark, and all canines would be similar to every other animal of that species existing on the planet today.
Macro-evolution on the other hand refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes, and this is the bases for which Darwin's theory has been propagated.
Now back to my reasons for disagreeing with theistic evolutionists. I find it sad that any Christian who would claim to hold to the truths of the Scriptures, could then turn around and say that they question the most basic and foundational truths revealed in the Scriptures such as: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. In doing so, they are not merely questioning the curious mechanics and unique events of the creation week, but they are debating the very words and message of that week. Furthermore, to deny God created everything through Christ in a normal 6-day period is to question the very character and nature of God. It attributes to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless, death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation", that would make Him (God) the very Author and Sustainer of all that the theory of evolution demands. In my opinion those who attribute to the power of Satan any miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Holy Spirit, are in danger of committing Blasphemy. Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10
Another disturbing fact about having a belief in theistic evolution, would be the denial of the doctrine of Original Sin. Think about it, if suffering, death, and extinction are inevitable components of the evolutionary process, then it only follows that the doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense. Humans would had to have evolved into a world that was already filled with suffering and other forms of imperfection, such as hurricanes, floods, pain, and suffering. Ultimately, death would not be a punishment for sin because death would had to have always been a part of the cycle of life wich would have been needed for evolution to exist on earth. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, if humans are not responsible for suffering and evil, but instead death is simply a natural process rather than a punishment, what need is there for atonement and redemption? After all if man is not responsible for sin as the Bible says, then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong why live by it's precepts?
Now I need to address the debate over the Hebrew word Yom or יום. Those who disagree with the literal translation of the Bible that claims God created everything in six literal earth days, use the argument that yom is sometimes used to describe an age or an era. I offer six reasons theistic evolutionists and OEC's are wrong in their interpretation of the record of Genesis.
1.) Moses repeats, And there was evening and there was morning, one day Genesis 1:5, Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, Genesis 1:23, Genesis 1:31.
2.) In the context of a 24 hour day, Moses again defines what he means by yom, For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17.
3.) The Hebrew word for day, or yom, is used 1480 times in the Old Testament, and it is translated by some different 50 words. It can mean an indefinite time, but it is not used as an age of millions or billions of years. When "yom" is used with a numerical adjective, it always refers to a literal 24 hour day.
4.) The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, uses "hemera" or ἡμέρα, which normally means a 24 hour day such as, And He was in the wilderness forty days, not forty ages or eras. Mark 1:13.
5.) Furthermore, if Moses meant a period of long eons or ages, then the translators should have used the Greek word, "aion" or αἰών. which is the word Christ used when he gave His followers their marching orders for the great commission in Matthew12:20
teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen
"Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her." And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH SO THEN THEY ARE NO LONGER TWO, BUT ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.
So, from this exchange you can see that Jesus obviously agreed with Moses in his interpretation of the creation story, thus rejecting macro evolution and the Old Earth theory. Jesus specifically said, from the beginning He made them. He did not say, In the beginning he started the process. Jesus believed there was a definite beginning and that Moses did not write an allegorical story because the Israelites were to primitive to understand the truth. So if Jesus said so, why would anyone want to disagree with Him?
Also, those of you who are proponents of theistic evolution are walking a very thin line, because you also must deny the very existence of the Trinity.
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. John 5:7
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him 1 Corinthians 8:6
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth. Psalm 104:30
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2.
The Scriptures, and an understanding of the texts, should be enough to prove to Christians that the Bible is right. When it comes to the debate with the godless Darwinists, we Christians are living in great times. Every day we find more evidence that proves the Scriptures are historically, archeologically, and scientifically correct. Now is not the time for us Christians to compromise our faith in God, for ultimately that is how we will be judged. Do you have enough faith in God to believe He is who He says He is, and that he can do what He said He would do? The faith of a mustard seed is all you need to throw a mountain into the sea, could you imagine the trembling of the Godless if we Christians had such faith?
I pray that those who have ears to hear will hear His voice and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible nowhere tells us how old the heavens and earth literally are. Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages. And Peter also says that one day with the LORD is as a thousand years. And no flesh being has lived one day with the LORD. Methuselah is recorded as having lived 969 years, not quite that ‘day’ with the LORD.
Genesis 1:2 said there was a flood long before Noah was born in a flesh body. And Jeremiah and Peter both write about a flood before Noah’s time.
So your ‘term’ Old Earth Creationism is NOT against the WORD, it actually comes from the WORD.
Moses does not say that ‘Lucifer’ was created in Genesis, but he was there in the midst of the Garden with knowledge of good and evil. Now if everything made in the days of creation was good, where and when did this knowledge of good and evil the serpent whispered into the woman’s ear take place?
Now both Isaiah and Ezekiel tell of ‘Lucifer’ and even Ezekiel says that the king of Tyrus another name of the serpent, (among other names and roles) was in the Garden of Eden. So when was ‘Lucifer’ created? When did he rebel? and When was he sentenced to ‘death’ Hebrews 2:14. And when were the ‘souls/spirit’ created that partook of flesh and blood? As Paul describes in this same verse 2:14 of Hebrews. Genesis 1:2 is describing the ‘overthrow’ that Paul tells us about in Ephesians 1:4.
And NO I have no belief in ‘evolution’.
Do you mean things in the bible like the fact that God said there was no sin and spirit death BEFORE the fall of man? IF evolution were true, there would HAVE to be spirit death BEFORE the fall of man- The whoel word of God, and reason for Christs birth and death, was to redeam man from the sin ghe brought upon all mankind because he sinned against God when told not to- So no, there isnt anythign in Gods word that supports theistic evolution
CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?
In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?
In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a true picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.
Take Genesis, for example. Liberalism rejects the Bibles own claim that God told Moses what to write (Exodus 24:4; Numbers 33:2; etc.). Instead, it assumes that Genesis is a collection of writings by authors living much later. These hypothetical authors (dubbed J, E, D, and P) were writing merely out of their own experience and convictions. An example can be found in Conrad Hyers book, The Meaning of Creation. He attributes the content of Genesis 1 and 2 not to Gods revelation, but to the life experiences and religious purposes of its hypothetical authors, presumably writing hundreds of years after Moses.1
WHERE DID EVIL COME FROM?
A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:
The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?2
The Bible clearly tells us that evil, suffering, and death are real, so we are not escapist. However, evil is not intrinsic to the world. God created a good world. Evil entered by the free choice of individual human beings when Adam and Eve first sinned. So it is not contradictory to say that some day God will wipe out evil and sorrow.
This teaching is both our hope for the future and our basis for fighting evil today. The theistic evolutionist loses all this. By denying the Fall, he loses the Biblical answer to the question, where did evil and suffering come from?
Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to Gods creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God. To avoid this conclusion theistic evolutionists usually trivialize evil. This imperfect world is just a stepping stone to a better world which will evolve from it. Which brings us to the next point.
REDEEMED FROM WHAT?
If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.
I was talking to a young woman recently who summed it up well. The answer is so simple, she said, that we often overlook it. Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened, so that settles it. We may not be able to master a lot of complex arguments against theistic evolution, but even a child can grasp this one. Among those who claim to be Christians, Jesus own treatment of Genesis closes the question.
While the bible may be twisted and stretched to view long ages- doing so, one has to outright deny the whole context of Gods word, and compelte passages in order to do so- and even bring into question the whole message of Gods word of redemption
Science is not a religion.
But evolution is not science and evolution is a 'religion'!
I wasn’t complaining, but I did understand metmom’s point and agree. However, I ask again, “Why do you care?”
This was to be a discussion about the belief of creationism vs evolution inside the Christian realm.
I say again, if you want to discuss the point of the thread then do so. I am finished discussing any other matter with you here. Save it for another thread, then if I am involve3d I may then take up the debate, but not here and not now!
I will say that ColdWater is correct about the idea that we Christians are expected to sit off to the side and shut up lest we get in the way of your secular right to run the world. Well I’ll tell you what, the secularists have not done a very good job with out GOD!
Wrong! Nowhere can you justify those verses to say what you want them to say. Also, by believing in the OEC you must accept evolution. Evolution involves a lot more then just animals birds and humans, it also involves the planet. To say you believe in the OEC theory and Gap Theory but not evolution is absurd.
LOL. Not sure whether that's a typo or a deliberate pun, but I like it.
Evolution and Earth Age are two different questions. There is no mention of evolution in the USGS publication.
I’ll run where I please.
It seems you enjoy mocking disabilities. Cottshop, to me, appears to have at least some degree of dyslexia. It’s a tough read at times, but he does make valuable contributions.
Are there any other disabilities that you’d like to mock, on the Religion Forum of all places? And, just what is the point of doing so? Personal ridicule?
I’m telling you that it didn’t. That is not what the issue was.
Are YOU presuming to read my mind now? Are you going to accuse me of lying?
[[Ill run where I please.]]
you do that spanky- We’ll just ignore your childish insults if you wish to continue
You said it yourself. It's tough to read.
If what is being said isn't worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn't worth reading either.
And have you noticed the handy spell check button to the left of the preview button?
The scientific method is not religious.
Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.
[[It’s what the science says. If it’s your contention that’s a religion, then we’ve got a theological disagreement.]]
Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious! Sorry- but assumptions are NOT science- they are theological ideology- now, if we had dating methods that were scientifically verified beyond a shadow of a doubt beyond 5000 or so years, then and only then could you argue that it is science- since however we can only assume the past, it becomes a rteligious belief, not sciecne- but whatever- you’vew got your religious belief about past events- we’ve got ours- whatever
OK. There's more to the OEC/YEC debate than just biology, but if that's the only aspect of you want to talk about, I can live with that. I think questions about aspects of those doctrines beyond evolution are "inside the Christian realm".
You’re certainly free not to read it, humblegunner.
The gap theory is an unfortunate compromise position taken by those who either don't understand the implications of the theory or don't love Scripture enough to take the Bible on what it clearly says. The gap theory is unscientific, unscriptural, and absolutely unnecessary.
[[If what is being said isn’t worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn’t worth reading either.]]
Yep- for the shallow who can’t get past clutter- nothign is ever worth the effort— content isn’t important apparently- delivery is more important than content- that’s what Ovbama banked on, and won on, and that’s why he’s able to single handedly dismantle our consitution right beneath our eyes- because shallow people are more star-struck by delivery than they are the actual content of his smooth presentation- Whatever-