ColinQ1-18-KerryA

These are Kerry's answers to some of Colin's questions. Alternative answers can also be found by following links, for example the link to Biological Evolution in the first question. — Bruce 21:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've realised that a group of 9 questions headed "Creation" got left out. For completeness I've copied them to the end of this page, with answers of my own. Bruce 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Definitions

1. a) What is Biological Evolution? b) Do all scientists accept it?

Questioning Mainstream Science
	dissenting scientists

b) No, not all scientists accept biological evolution as true. It therefore follows that we cannot rely on it as an incontrovertible truth and base assumptions on it with any certainty.

— Colin (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce — a) Biological evolution is the evolution of species. Follow the link to Biological Evolution to see more, and discuss if you wish.

Bruce — b) No, not all scientists accept it; not all scientists even know enough about it to be in a position to accept or reject it. Nevertheless, the vast majority of scientists accept it. No absolute conclusion can be drawn from the fact that a fraction of scientists reject evolution. How big is the fraction? See here.

2. What is Common Descent? Or What do the terms God-Directed Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism, Creationary Evolution mean, and how do they differ?

Bruce — Common descent is another way of saying "common ancestry". Follow the links to see my answers to the other terms.

3. What is Science and how does it work?

A. Science is knowledge deduced from experiment, observation, repeated and predictable outcomes to come up with theories of how the world works. It's mostly about material things.

Bruce — I agree with Kerry's answer; I'd also say that Science grew from "Natural Theology" as understood by Christians, and that its ideals (at least) are in accord with Wisdom as understood in the Bible.

Paul I would just add that the more testing of a theory, then the more credibility the theory warrants, deserves, achieves. Paul (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Evolution

1. Do we have a common ancestor? If so, what or who is it?

A. Pass.

B our common ancestor is Adam, as the Bible says: 1 Chron 1/1; Luke 3/38. Colin (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)}}

Bruce — We have many common ancestors. Mathematical modelling leads to the conclusion that almost all people alive today are descended from Confucius, for example. It is even more likely that all people alive today are descended from Adam. This is not the same as saying that we are descended only from Adam, though, and there is Biblical and scientific evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor‎.

Paul — The human genealogy passages quoted start with God. But are we to assume that God has never created anything beforehand? God's use of analogies involving the stars of the universe and the sand of the seashores may imply a possibility that there is much more of God to wonder about. God should not be limited by what is recording in the Bible. The Bible is a wonderous record of God's relationship with humanity and this earth of ours. God has recorded all that is needed for us to know and to have a fruitful relationship with God. I'm sure that God is much bigger than we can possibly imagine and much bigger than the beginning of human life with Adam, or the genealogy from Adam. Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul — The genealogy of Numbers 1 and Numbers 26 start with the sons of Jacob (Israel) and ignore Abraham and Isaac and Adam — this does not mean that what happened before the sons of Jacob was not important. It was important for the census to start from Jacob (Israel) in their historical context and for the purposes of each census. The only common ancestor that we all have is God. God is what the whole of creation has in common. God is the only beginning. In fact Christ said that God is able to raise up children of Abraham from stones (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8); metaphorically and I believe literally as well. "common ancestor" is not a Biblical phrase. "Genealogy" is. Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Why would evolution require death as part of its survival-of-the-fittest process?

A. Because death wipes out the unfit, unable to reproduce and pass on unfit qualities to offspring.

B But death wipes out the 'fit' as well! How so, unless Adam's race became subject to death as a consequence of his disobedience. Rom 5/12.

— Colin (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)]

Bruce — "Fitness" in neo-Darwinian theory means ability to pass on genes to progeny in a given environment. Even if they die before the progeny are alive (like male spiders eaten by their mates) they are still "fit" in an evolutionary sense. As populations go through their generations in varying environments, they adapt. Death speeds up the process.

3. If death came upon Adam as a result of his disobedience, and there were other beings already around, how can you prove they are not still around?

A. I suppose you can't, you'd have to do some genetic tests. But they'd be in a bad way.

B This answer assumes evolution is in process, which is not proven, and that there were other beings of some sort around too. The Scriptures know nothing of other (evolved) beings outside of God's creation.

— Colin (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)]

Colin, a message from Kerry: "The answer assumed that there were other beings of some sort around too because YOUR QUESTION assumed there were other beings already around. Your hypothetical question got a hypothetical answer. My answer assumes nothing about evolution." (from Bruce 17 March 2019)

Bruce — I don't understand the question or these answers. Death came upon Shimei (1 Kings 2:37,42) as a result of his disobedience, and there were other people around at the time - how can you prove they are not still around?

Paul — I have always assumed that death existing in and around the garden of Eden. I believe this because otherwise Adam could not have understood what God was saying to him that he would die as a consequence of eating from a particular Tree. It was all about access to the Tree of Life that perpetuated life. Anyone or anything that ate from this Tree of Life would potentially live for ever (Gen 3:22). By being removed from the garden, Adam and Eve now reverted to the "norm" of aging over time, wearing out through work and toil and ultimately dying and returning to the dust. Anyone or anything that was not inside the garden of Eden could not have had access to the Tree of Life. Therefore anyone or anything outside of the garden would be in a degenerating state leading to death and dust. Only with permission from God to enter the garden and to eat of the Tree of Life could you live forever (Gen 3:24; Rev 22:14). Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul — There does not appear to be any other humans nearby to Eden (Gen 2:5 — but this verse is talking about agriculture and humans can survive on food obtained by means other than agriculture - today we have groceries and fruit & veg shops thank goodness). Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul — The first man was created inside of and lived in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:8). I believe that other creatures may have existed outside the garden but unless they ate of the Tree of Life then they would have been dying creatures and creatures that had died or were turning back to dust. This would have been a vital lesson for Adam to learn so that he / they would understand God's Word about "death". Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce — actually Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed man of the dust..." (KJV) then Genesis 2:8 says he planted a garden eastward in Eden; and then it says "and there he put the man whom he had formed". So he was created outside the garden, and taken there.

Paul — Agreed. But the passage could also be read as 2 verses merged: God formed the man; God planted a garden; God placed the man in the garden. Genesis 1 and 2 traverse time forwards and backwards. But on the surface it reads that the man was formed outside the garden and subsequently was transported into the garden.

Paul — I'm not sure where the rest of this question and some of the answers were getting at. Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

4. Can evolutionists explain the origin of life?

A. No, they might speculate, but it's not relevant to evolution.

B How is it not so?

— Colin (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce — Evolution is about the origin of species by natural (as opposed to artificial) selection. The origin of life is a different question. See the quote I put in from Origin of Species at Theistic Evolution.

5. What went ‘bang’ if the “Big Bang” claimed by evolutionists occurred?

Q. What went 'bang' if the "Big Bang" claimed postulated by evolutionists scientists occurred?

A. Dense matter of which the universe is made.

B If so, what caused it?

— Colin (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)]

Bruce — the Big Bang is something Astrophysicists and Cosmologists study. It has nothing to do with any aspect of Biology.

On the understanding that the Big Bang has nothing to do with any aspect of Biology, I'll say: if the Big Bang happened, God caused it.

6. Is macro-evolution verifiable? Is the theory of evolution still theory or unequivocal fact?

A. I don't know.

Bruce — yes, indeed, macro-evolution in the sense that e.g. Stephen Stearns uses the term is verifiable. Other Biologists There are other biologists who do not make a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. [Edit to clarify — Bruce 20:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)]

7. Darwin expressed doubts over gaps between species (transitional forms). Have any been found and validated beyond dispute?

Bruce — Yes, to the glory of the Creator!

And for that matter, to the credit of Darwin and Wallace, remarkably confirming their theorising long after their deaths. Not only have fossils been found in locations and strata predicted by evolutionary theory (which I think the question was getting at) but unknown living things have been discovered by looking in environments where evolutionary theory predicted they would be found; and even more wonderful and confirming, since the middle of last century the secret code of genetics has been uncovered and tested, to such an extent that Francisco J Ayala, author of Darwin's gift to science and religion can say that we can determine the family relationship between any two living species with as much precision as we want. [See Francisco J Ayala in this wiki.]

This is why popular anti-evolutionists are now talking a lot about how they accept micro-evolution. They didn't say that before, and they're copping some heat from their old guard.

It has turned out that living things indeed do "beget according to their kinds", and that the very mechanism of begettal actually contains within it, invisibly, a complete history going back through the generations. What would Solomon say?

P.S. "Beyond dispute" is an impossibly high bar. I've answered the question as if it were "beyond reasonable dispute".

Paul — A question. Has analysis been done to a large enough population of the whole world to distinquish a family connection between all of humanity? I suppose we must of necessity all be connected otherwise we would have died out. But what of people who were in "isolation" and had died out a very long time ago (if such people — i.e. bones — exists)? I assume the genetic coding will show that they are all connected as well — i.e. they are not unique? Paul (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce — And an answer: yes. The same matching that is accepted by courts to establish paternity, etc establishes that we are all one big family. The rest of the story, though, establishes that we are more distant relatives of other living things. Re isolated populations: that shows, too. Here's a newspaper story about research that explores how the genomes of related but different groups of very isolated Andamanese show their history.

Bruce — huh, by co-incidence someone just sent me a link to this. His employer pays for his Nature subscription I guess. (This looks like a draft of the whole paper. — Bruce 20:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)]) But you can see from the abstract how it works. See the use of the word "differentiate", referring to the arrival of a genetic marker in an individual's genome that is inherited by his/her descendants. It's wonderful, and it's to the glory of the Creator as I wrote earlier. Who would have imagined that the invisible mechanism of Scriptural "begettal" carries within it a billion-character tweet that tells the whole family history as humankind has been fruitful and multiplied and replenished the earth?!

Bruce Also this. It's the whole paper this time. Terrific stuff, just amazing if you give it some time.

Adam

1. Was Adam an evolved being or created from the dust of the ground?

A. According to Genesis he was formed from the dust. We are all formed from the dust: Job 10:8-9, Psalm 103:13-14.

Bruce — Agree. It's not an either/or question.

B. Adam was created after the 5th day,(Gen 1/23) i.e. on the 6th day when, at the end of the evening and morning, God declared everything he had made to be very good (Gen 1/29). You are right to say he was formed from the dust of the ground, but the term cannot be so expansive as to say he was the end product of an evolution over aeons of time. It just doesn't fit the picture described in Gen 1, and affirmed elsewhere in Scripture where creation took 6 days (e.g. Exod 20/11; 31/17), after which God rested (desisted - Strongs). We are also told in Gen 2/1 that the "heavens and earth" were finished, thus, if so, any evolutionary principle stopped then, which rather defies evolution in any case.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce 12:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — trying to turn this into a PQRC → Colin Adam question 1 answer to PQRC.

Paul — A comment about "rested" on the 7th day. We know that God did not stop working for the creation. If He had, then the creation would immediately cease to be. The "rest" was from His creative work. After 6 days God could concentrate on more important things, developing the character in humanity that would truly reflect God's glory, even more so than the artistry of the creation of the world. What God had accomplished in the 6 days was for His creation to semi-autonomously sustain themselves — the creation could breathe God's breath of life, they could eat and drink to sustain themselves, they could marry and be given in marriage, they could work and grow and change; humanity could think, wonder, communicate, plan, build, destroy, live and show good and evil. God had provide humanity with the ability to grow and change and learn how to replenish the earth and to demonstrate God-like management of the creation. And God worked sometimes openly and most times behind the scenes to challenge humanity to be the best that they could be. Christ clarifies God's rest many times in the NT (e.g. Matt 11:28-29 — NKJ "Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you "rest". Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find "rest" for your souls." This is not "rest" with feet up and relaxed but the "rest" of living like Christ did and by sharing a special connection with the Creator. Paul (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Was Adam created ‘mortal’ (subject to death)? And was he prone to sin when made/formed?

A. If created immortal he'd still be alive, so he must have been created mortal. If "prone to sin" means weak and earthly, then yes. 1 Corinthians 15 says he was "sown in weakness" "of the earth, earthy".

Bruce — This is one of the questions where we have had disagreements since the days of John Thomas, and the "resolution of difficulties" that arise has been found again and again. The fact is that we have "various understandings of Scripture" on the question. Some accept the concept of "amortal", others don't.

B. “…so he must have been created mortal”

This cannot be the case since the sentence of mortality (subject to death) was not started until after he sinned. Genesis 2/17 "in the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely die." (Mg ‘dying thou shalt die’). As we know, he didn't die until 930 years later (Genesis 5/5), so the sentence passed was initiated on that day in the Garden of Eden, until he eventually died and returned to the ground (Genesis 3/19, & Ecclesiastes 3/20 "all are of the dust, and turn to dust again.")

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

C. "prone to sin": KP 'if it means weak and earthly" - No, I don't think so. Paul was aware of the principal at work on him, that when he delights in the law of God and wants to do good, he perceives a contrary law at work “in my members” warring against what he wants to do, which brings him captive to the “law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7/21-23). From this frustrating dichotomy Paul pleads for deliverance (v 24), and thanks God there is deliverance, through Jesus Christ. With the mind he serves the law of God, but “with the flesh the law of sin” (v 25). The lust of the flesh is part of our combat experience which is contrary to the Spirit (of God) “so that you cannot do the things that you would” (want to do). This is also confirmed in Romans 6/12, John 3/6, Romans 5/12, “through one man, sin entered into the world (Gk. kosmos = orderly arrangement, Strongs) and death by sin, and so this passed, or was transmitted to all men, for that all have sinned”. Again, “In Adam all die”, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15/22. To suggest the phrase “prone to sin” means ‘weak and earthly” does not seem to fit the sense of these Scriptures. The Hebrew word for man used in the sense of weak and earthly is usually Enosh.

iv) "sown in weakness": I feel this is a misquote. The context is speaking about the resurrection (v42) when the body sprouts or springs forth from the grave (the Greek word ‘speiro’ has this meaning). It is the same Greek word used in vs 42–44, and describes the resurrected body as the decaying/perishing (v42), reproachful (dishonour), weakness, (in the sense of frailty, disease, infirmity) (v43), and a natural body (i.e., the animal in the “animal - vegetable-or mineral” of quiz fame. Earthly (47) in this sense of frail, mortal man.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

D. Paul In relation to Adam's mortality, as I discussed above, I have always assumed that death existing in and around the garden of Eden. I believe this because otherwise Adam could not have understood what God was saying to him that he would die as a consequence of eating from a particular Tree. It was all about access to the Tree of Life that perpetuated life. Anyone or anything that ate from this Tree of Life would potentially live for ever (Gen 3:22). By being removed from the garden, Adam and Eve now reverted to the "norm" of aging over time, wearing out through work and toil and ultimately dying and returning to the dust. Anyone or anything that was not inside the garden of Eden could not have had access to the Tree of Life. Therefore anyone or anything outside of the garden would be in a degenerating state leading to death and dust. Only with permission from God to enter the garden and to eat of the Tree of Life could you live forever (Gen 3:24; Rev 22:14). Paul (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

E. Paul The question whether Adam was "prone to sin when made/formed?" implies to me based on my understanding of the word prone that God had deliberately or accidentally set Adam to fail. The Unity Basis states that we "inherit a nature , prone to sin". Has the meaning of the word prone changed over time? If God had created Adam so that he was "likely" or "liable" to sin then this implies that Adam was to some extent set up to sin (using 2 main synonyms for prone and used in the definition of the word). Semantics!

From the Unity Basis "As his (Adam's) descendants we partake of that mortality that came by sin, and inherit a nature, prone to sin. By our own actions we become sinners and stand in need of forgiveness of sins before we can be acceptable before God."

I don't believe that God set up Adam to fail. That does not fit with my understanding of God. Does anyone agree with that? We each make choices in life and Christ extended sin beyond just 'actions' (the word used in the Unity Basis quoted above) to 'thoughts' and "words' as well (Matt 5:22). When we choose to disobey God then we sin. We each have Adam's nature, we each have freewill to make choices for ourselves. But we all have inherited the punishment on humanity of dying and death as well as the consequences of sin of "shame (and) a defiled conscience" (Unity Basis). We die because we no longer have access to the Tree of Life. Have I missed something here? Paul (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

F. Paul Sin entered the world. The punishment on adam was that they were expelled from the garden for if they had remained in the garden then they could have lived forever (Gen 3v22). Eating the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden affected all of humanity (passed on from parents to children - by hereditary). Dying is as well (a natural part of all life) because for all of creation the tree of life was not accessible. That is why adam did not die straight away. If adam had left the garden and not eaten from the tree of life then they would also have died over time. This hypothecal is what happened, with the exception that adam did not leave the garden, they were expelled from the garden.

• For what it's worth, see here how Robert Roberts' views on Adam's mortality changed over time. —BP

3. If Adam was evolved, with what nature was Jesus born?

A. Human nature, made in all points like unto his brethren. Hebrews 2. By whatever means Adam was created, the way he was created does not alter what he passed on to his offspring. Whatever he was when he had offspring, that's what he passed on.

Bruce — Agree. "by whatever means he was created" — yes.

B. It really comes down to a question of whether the sentence of mortality was a new experience after Adam sinned.

If new, then it confirms the sentence became a law of his being in terms of Romans 5/12, and the work of Jesus had to do with rescuing the human-race from the consequences brought about by Adam's disobedience. It was a case of either “perish” or have “everlasting life” (John 3/16) and the sting of death, which is sin, is removed following a favourable judgement at Christ's return (1Corinthians 15/50–57). John Baptist exclaimed “behold the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world (kosmos). If not a new experience, then it appears to me God’s plan of rescue flounders. This answer touches on question two.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

4. How could Jesus’ birth & death benefit other beings existing contemporary with Adam and afterwards?

A. Assuming that these are human beings, the same way as for all of humankind — faith comes by hearing the word of God.

[ Agreed. Bruce (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)]

B. This is similar to questions 2, 3 and 5, and revolves around whether mortality was part of Adam’s evolved condition (as claimed), or if it was the sentence God inflicted following Adam’s disobedience. The question only arises because of assertions there were “others” around contemporary with Adam when he was “created”, by which I mean on the 6th day of creation as per Genesis 1/27, 31; but others believing evolution infer aeons of time and a point in time when Adam became a human being. [When was that by the way?]

Christ's death could only benefit believers of the human race since Adam (Hebrews 2/14–15). Non- humans (if there were such) described as hominids for humanoids would not benefit, not being in Adams line.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

5. If Evolution is granted, why was there a need for Jesus’ sacrifice to redeem anyone, and what from?

A. Evolution is a mechanism of creation. Jesus' sacrifice is to save people from death. However we arrived at our need for salvation, it doesn't alter the fact that we need it.

Bruce — I don't understand how the two parts of the question fit together. Evolution of species doesn't make any difference to the human condition. Example: we have evolved significantly within historical times with respect to lactose tolerance, and it has affected human history quite drastically. But people with the new lactose tolerance need salvation just as much as old-style lactose intolerant people do. It's just not relevant.

B "Evolution is a mechanism of creation" What Scriptures prove this assertion? In my opinion it is too much to accept that the process of evolution is the same as “create” as used in scripture. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Was mortality an inbuilt characteristic of evolved beings and at what point in time was it included in its DNA signature/information? Was it a result of an adverse non-beneficial mutation? (proof please). Evolution is a fake faith – the Bible is consistent with a God having the power to command and to bring his creative work about – Genesis 1/3, 6–7, 9, 11, 14–15, 24, 29–30.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

6. Was “Adam” an historical fact in light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor 15/21-22, 15/45; 1 Tim 2/13?

A. Not necessarily.

Bruce — agree. See my quotation from James Dunn at "adam" the common noun. But I'd go further: see my contribution at 1 Corinthians 10:4.

B. If Adam was not an historical fact, then, using the nebulous phrase " not necessarily", neither were Cain, Abel, Seth, and you can continue down the line of Adam 's descendants. Why draw the line at Adam? The Scriptures quoted above are clear in proving Adam to be historically true. God says so. Luke 3/38 and 1 Chron 1/1 and Gen 5/1 also confirm this.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OED defines the phrase "not necessarily" thus:

(as a response) what has been said or suggested may not be true or unavoidable.

I understood it to mean that Paul's remarks neither necessitate the historicity of " “Adam” " nor eliminate its possibility. I don't find it "nebulous". In my contribution in 1 Corinthians as cited above I wrote

Paul's willingness, not just to allude to this tradition [of the Following Rock], but to build a lesson of his own on it, is relevant to our understanding of the nature of God's inspiration of the apostle's writing. Specifically, it shows that a favourable mention by Paul of a traditional belief or interpretation does not necessarily imply that he believed that it was historically accurate or that he "endorsed" it.

— Bruce (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

7. Was Adam the first man?

A. Yes, according to 1_Corinthians. "Adam" is Hebrew for "mankind".

Bruce — Yes, Adam is the first man, and Jesus is the second man.

B. The first reference to 'man' is in Genesis 1/26 (Hebrew: Adam, a human being - an individual or species, mankind – Strongs). Verse 27 tells us (he is an individual, not mankind in this act of creation) he was made in the image of God. Further detail is given in chapter 2 regarding his creative formation from the dust of the ground, given life (note, he didn’t have it before this moment of time), placed in the Eden, given a commandment regarding the tree of knowledge, gave names to the beasts and birds brought to him; but none were a help for him. Eve was created from his rib. The first mention of Adam's name as an individual appears to be in chapter 2/19. Before that he is referred to as 'the man' (ch 2/15, 16, 18). It is therefore clear even from the Genesis Record that Adam was the first man, and this is also confirmed in chapter 5/1–5. To insert “mankind” whenever ‘man’ appears in Genesis 1&2 does not make sense.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

C. Paul — NKJ Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind (Adam) in the day they were created. Paul (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

"In the day they were created" they were "male and female". They were together called "Adam" by God. The male called the woman "Eve" (not God). Paul (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

8. If Adam was “created” mortal, what was the sentence God brought on him for disobedience in light of Rom 5/12?

A. The sentence of death: the day in which you eat you shall die. Expulsion from paradise and the tree of life meant his body, sown in corruption, would perish.

Bruce — Death.

B. The answer appears to be a contradiction of terms in saying the sentence of death was brought on a mortal man, mortal meaning 'subject to death'. Expulsion from the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3/24) did not occur until after God pronounced the sentence in chapter 3/19, "for dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return", in fulfilment of the prediction in chapter 2/17, if he disobeyed. Expulsion was not the sentence – it was a consequence, decided on by the Elohim (3/22–24) to prevent his access to the tree of life.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul — All the curses upon the man were applied through their removal from the garden of Eden (Gen 3:17-19). In Eden they had eaten ate tree growing foods (Gen 2:9).

To me the cursing of the ground applied to everything outside the boundary of the garden of Eden:

* In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.

* Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you and you shall eat the herb of the field.

* In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.

Paul — The punishment of dying also involved removal from the garden of Eden (Gen 3:22). This is proven by NKJ "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever".

Paul — I would assume from this that Adam and Eve, though mortal, could still live forever. Removal of their access to Eden meant that mortally would run its course and they would die. Non removal would mean that they could live forever. The angels were following through on the judgement of God (as they invariably do). How much time elapsed in Gen 3:20-21 (Adam naming his wife and the provision of clothing) could have been completed in a minute or 2 or perhaps longer but I would not assume that verse 19 and verse 22 are 2 separate occasions. That would portray a lack of connection between God and the angels or a lack of perception and of consequences on the part of the angels to the judgement of death. I would assume that it follows one after another and is related together. Paul (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Jesus

1. 1. Jesus quotes from Gen 1/27 & Gen 2/24 in Mark 10/6 and Matt 19/4 saying the events he speaks of happened at “the beginning”. How then are the events allegorical rather than real?

A. Why should he not quote from the story, whether historically true or allegorical?

If it's history there are a lot of questions to ask.

If it's allegory it is a powerful story which is true for the the experience of every person.

Bruce — I agree. Note that many translations use words like humankind rather than the personal name "Adam": see at Genesis 1:24-31 and here ("Adam and Eve, or humankind?"). Please contribute to discussion at Does Genesis 1:26 refer to Adam or humankind?

B. In Matthew 19 Jesus refers the Pharisees to the Scriptures of Genesis 1/29 and 5/1, and of Genesis 2/24, otherwise known as "Moses” ( Luke 24/27 - "...beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures…) Genesis1 and 2 then are considered by Jesus to be a true account of God's creation of Adam and Eve. No allegory there.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Argument from "Endorsement"— BP

Creation

Colin —(Bruce: ascribe author to your answers please.)

Bruce — done

1 Is create as used in the Bible the equivalent of evolve?

Bruce —

• Equivalent, no. Create has quite a broad meaning, as in English. See for example Isaiah 43:1-7, which seems to have a political significance, speaking of all the children of Israel being “created”, “formed” and “made”. Psalm 33:13-15, on the other hand, is more personal: “The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth [יָצַר (yatzar) - the potter's word, used of Adam in Genesis ch 2] their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.” Clearly this fashioning of the heart (i.e. mind, thoughts) does not suggest creation by evolution.
  
• Can creation as used in the Bible suggest evolution? Yes. This was understood many centuries before Charles Darwin. Ibn Ezra and Abrabanel explained the redundancy in Genesis 2:3 as meaning that God made the creation to go on creating itself, and more recently “according to their kind” has been interpreted as referring to evolution which would occur in succeeding generations – sometimes called “micro-evolution”.

Colin — But not "macroevolution", that is from lower life forms to higher life forms.

Bruce — See Baraminology and Microevolution and Macroevolution. But the Bible does not make the micro/macro distinction, and neither did Ibn Ezra and Abrabanel. The fact that some creationists have surrendered on micro-evolution is amusing, but doesn't change anything. (On the collapse of the case against microevolution, see Creationists' varying definitions of microevolution and macroevolution.)

Colin — Also, 'evolve' is not used in the Bible. It is inserted language, not inspired. We need to have more than simply suggestive language. The word "create" in the context of the Genesis account refers to God's miraculous accomplishments of His creative 6 day work.

— Colin (talk)

Bruce — (Does this "Also," mean "I'm ignoring your answer"?)
"Electricity" is not used in the Bible, but "lightning" is. Similarly: "parapatric speciation" is not used in the Bible, but "replenish the earth" is; "cladistic" is not used in the Bible, but the concept of reproduction according to kind most certainly is.

2 What does the word “earth” refer to in Genesis 1?

Bruce — The land beneath the heavens. It does not include the firmament.

3 What does Gen 4/26 mean which says, “then men began to call on the name of Yahweh”?

Bruce — People began to pray to or worship Yahweh by name. See this discussion.

4 What did the plants which were created on the 3rd day, and required pollination for survival, do while waiting for bees to evolve, which the Bible says were created on the 5th day?

Bruce — They simply waited, bearing their fruits according to the seasons, as Genesis 1:11-12 actually says. This is one of the clearest indications in the text that the format of a seven-day week is a rhetorical and didactic device, not to be understood literally. Different kinds of trees come into fruit at different times of the year, and they were “each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind”.

Colin — Is it reasonable to assume that fruit-bearing trees waited for millions of years before bees were created to pollinate the fruit flowers on which fruit relies. From Wikipedia, the following:

"Pollination of fruit trees is required to produce seeds with surrounding fruit. It is the process of moving pollen from the anther to the stigma, either in the same flower or in another flower. Some tree species, including many fruit trees, do not produce fruit from self-pollination, so pollinizer trees are planted in orchards. The pollination process requires a carrier for the pollen, which can be animal, wind, or human intervention."

But Jesus understood the Genesis account to be real and literal when addressing the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 19/4-6, and we have no better authority than he and his Father who gave him the words to speak (John 12/49-50).

— Colin (talk)

Bruce — The seven-day week is a rhetorical and didactic device. Untold literal events are compressed into its days, just as a vast number of literal events are involved in a single pollination. It is just as much a misreading to ask "how could the fruit have been pollinated?" as it is to ask "how could apples and oranges have been in season on the same day?"

Bruce — To say that Jesus "understood the Genesis account to be real and literal" on account of Matthew 19:4 is an interpretation, similar to saying that Jesus had wrong beliefs about the size of mustard seed, or that he claimed to have seen Satan fall literally from heaven. It's wrong, I believe. But in any case, what Jesus adduced in the discussion about divorce was completely true to Genesis 1:26-27: God made humankind male and female. What little it has to do with evolution actually confirms biological evolution.

5 When God “finished” his work on the 6th day (Gen 2/1-2), was there any supposed ongoing evolutionary process occurring?

Bruce — Supposed processes naturally depend on how the reader understands the text. Presumably, given the nature of the text, we are to imagine the trees continuing to bear fruit in season, the living things teeming in the waters, the people who had been fruitful and replenished the earth, etc all continuing in normal life as the Creator enters into his rest (which does not mean inactivity). Compare Psalm 104.

Colin — "Finished" has the sense of "completed". What God commenced on Day 1 became completed on day 6, but did not 'stop' the workings of His creation to bear fruit and multiply as it was designed to do. Refer Bro Peter Heavyside's Genesis 1-2: A Hormonised and Historical Reading, ch. 4

— Colin (talk)

Bruce — Yes, of course. If life works the way the biologists say, evolution continues. If it doesn't, it's open to speculation. Either way the Creator continues to sustain his creation, which is why I wrote "Compare Psalm 104".

Bruce (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2019 (AEST) — (See Psalm 104:2-4 re leaving out verse 3, and Psalm 104:5 re Literal Reading, Heliocentrism. See Psalm 104:5-9 for the wider context and link to many other creation texts in our Creation Reference Table.)

6 Were birds created with wings and could fly, or did they have to evolve the wings and if so, what happened in the meantime?

Bruce — Birds were created with wings. Some birds cannot fly. If they were created by the processes recorded in almost every cell of their bodies, the kinds gradually became more adept at flight as they begat offspring down through the generations.

Colin — Biological evolution postulates birds evolved from dinosaurs or reptiles, but Jacaf points out this theory fails because a bird's skeletal and muscle structure is vastly different from such animals. It follows evolution did not evolve birds from reptiles which were of a different 'kind'. Birds were created on the 5th day while land animals were created the day after on the 6th day. Genesis is clear that God didn’t make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs. In fact, dinosaurs (land animals made on Day Six) came after winged creatures were made on Day Five, according to the Bible.

— Colin (talk)

Bruce — The seven-day week, used as a rhetorical and didactic structure, was actually made for humankind, long after at least some of the events described in Genesis 1. Speculations about an evolutionary sequence based on seven literal days are not of use to anyone. A biologist will trust the evidence that the Creator has incorporated into the mechanism by which his creatures reproduce according to their kinds.

7 The manner of creation is stated clearly in Gen 1 as “And God said...and it was so”. How can this support a theory of chance random happenings posed by Evolution?

Bruce — The text can be understood by a careful and respectful reading, without prejudice, whatever the scientific views of the reader may be.

Colin — But this view would not seem to accord with Psalm 33/6-9 written thousands of years after, recording that "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host...For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded and it stood firm.(ESV)" From this it is clear the Psalmist understood creation as literal, quite in keeping with a straightforward reading of the Genesis account, and Jesus' understanding of it too.

— Colin (talk)

Bruce — Speaking is not "a manner of creation". Ahasuerus commanded that Vashti be brought - that wasn't a manner of walking into the banquet hall. Far from describing a "manner of creation", the Psalm praises God for his truth, righteousness, judgement and power.

8 Are Chance and Design antithetical?

Bruce — No.

Colin — Antithetical has the idea of being opposite, or in contrast. Evolution by way of random mutations and natural selection does not synch with God as designer. Reviewing Darwin's Black Box in 1996, James Shapiro, microbiologist of the University of Chicago declared, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. Ten years later, nothing has changed. Call them wishful speculations or call them plausible scenarios - both just mean a lack of real answers." - Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box 10th Anniversary edition, p271

— Colin (talk)

Bruce — Behe and Phillip E Johnson are discredited, and William Dembski has announced his "retirement" from Intelligent Design. Beliefs about Arguments from Design is, or should be, a work in progress.

9 How does the Law of Entropy disprove evolution?

Bruce — It doesn't. It applies to closed systems, and as the Bible says (Jeremiah 31:35), the Earth is not a closed system.

---