Genesis 1: The Order of Events
And God spoke . . . His very word brought everything we see around us into existence.
Note the order of creation: 1. light, 2. An expanse of air (atmosphere) with water above and water below; 3. land out of the water, and vegetation; 4. Sun, moon, and stars; 5. Birds, fish; 6. Land animals/humanity.
A couple of observations here. First of all, there is a parallel happening in the order:
Day 1 Light Day 4 Sun, moon, stars
Day 2 Air and water Day 5 Birds, Fish
Day 3 Land, vegetation Day 6 Land animals, humanity
The Creation story divides the creation process into three primary sections: light, air/water, and land. You can almost see the basic aspects of created matter: fire, water, and earth. All of the specific aspects of creation on days 4-6 correspond with the general creation in days 1-3.
A second observation here. After having been schooled in the fine art of evolution (and make no mistake, it is more art than science), I want to suggest that evolution and creation share a common development in their creative process.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a basic order of evolution can be stated as such:
Big Bang (energy, catalyst) Day 1: Light
Development of individual worlds and galaxies (Day 4: sun, stars--I realize this is out of order--but the only one)
Earth becoming a solidifying ball, with some kind of primordial soup on the surface below a life-friendly atmosphere (Day 2: water and air)
Land forming via volcanoes out of the oceans (soup)(Day 3: land)
Life forming in the sea and migrating to the land (Day 3: Vegetation)
Vegetation, followed by more complex life forms that feed off of the vegetation
Fish developing in the ocean, and progressing to the air and land (Day 5: Fish and Birds created)
Land animals eventually progressing into humanity. (Day 6: Land animals and humanity)
So, when I look at the order of creation, I guess I am amazed that the Hebrew Bible, written about 3500-5000 years before modern scientific observation, perhaps earlier, has basically the same order as the evolutionary scientist, save the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Maybe they knew something after all? The Hebrew version is certainly unique for its day, in spite of people who say it was borrowed from other ancient religions. Also, the evolutionist does not have a corner on truth. It takes as much faith to believe as Big Band just happened as it does to think that a Supreme Being or Force at least caused it.
Now, 2 points from the Bible. God created. According to Genesis 1, he made everything for humanity, setting the table so that man might be able arrive as the crowning point of creation.
Secondly, Man is not a product of God's creation. Man is the crowning achievement of creation--all of the world was made for humanity--a gift to be used for God's glory. Evolution does not do justice to the idea that humanity was made for a special purpose. We are not a product of our environment. We were made to be masters of our environment. More on this later in the week.
Note the order of creation: 1. light, 2. An expanse of air (atmosphere) with water above and water below; 3. land out of the water, and vegetation; 4. Sun, moon, and stars; 5. Birds, fish; 6. Land animals/humanity.
A couple of observations here. First of all, there is a parallel happening in the order:
Day 1 Light Day 4 Sun, moon, stars
Day 2 Air and water Day 5 Birds, Fish
Day 3 Land, vegetation Day 6 Land animals, humanity
The Creation story divides the creation process into three primary sections: light, air/water, and land. You can almost see the basic aspects of created matter: fire, water, and earth. All of the specific aspects of creation on days 4-6 correspond with the general creation in days 1-3.
A second observation here. After having been schooled in the fine art of evolution (and make no mistake, it is more art than science), I want to suggest that evolution and creation share a common development in their creative process.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a basic order of evolution can be stated as such:
Big Bang (energy, catalyst) Day 1: Light
Development of individual worlds and galaxies (Day 4: sun, stars--I realize this is out of order--but the only one)
Earth becoming a solidifying ball, with some kind of primordial soup on the surface below a life-friendly atmosphere (Day 2: water and air)
Land forming via volcanoes out of the oceans (soup)(Day 3: land)
Life forming in the sea and migrating to the land (Day 3: Vegetation)
Vegetation, followed by more complex life forms that feed off of the vegetation
Fish developing in the ocean, and progressing to the air and land (Day 5: Fish and Birds created)
Land animals eventually progressing into humanity. (Day 6: Land animals and humanity)
So, when I look at the order of creation, I guess I am amazed that the Hebrew Bible, written about 3500-5000 years before modern scientific observation, perhaps earlier, has basically the same order as the evolutionary scientist, save the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Maybe they knew something after all? The Hebrew version is certainly unique for its day, in spite of people who say it was borrowed from other ancient religions. Also, the evolutionist does not have a corner on truth. It takes as much faith to believe as Big Band just happened as it does to think that a Supreme Being or Force at least caused it.
Now, 2 points from the Bible. God created. According to Genesis 1, he made everything for humanity, setting the table so that man might be able arrive as the crowning point of creation.
Secondly, Man is not a product of God's creation. Man is the crowning achievement of creation--all of the world was made for humanity--a gift to be used for God's glory. Evolution does not do justice to the idea that humanity was made for a special purpose. We are not a product of our environment. We were made to be masters of our environment. More on this later in the week.
9 Comments:
So the heavens are under the Chinese head?
Don't know about the Chinese head, but I'm afraid this comment is over mine.
Sorry Randy the comment aobut the location of heaven below the top of Chinese heads was meant for the following post about flatness and our assuming perspectives or knowledge on behalf of men now long gone by narrowing scriptural meaning by ignoring syntactical nuance.
I like this symmetrical analysis of the Creation.
you say
'Correct me if I'm wrong, but a basic order of evolution can be stated as such:
Big Bang (energy, catalyst) Day 1: Light'
It is amazing that evolutionists who try to refute the Biblical story of creation seem often to only underline its truth. But one of the first evolutionists, Charles Darwin, was a church attending apparent Christian,until excommunicated, much like Galileo, who developed a hypothesis that the variegation of species was determined by the environment in which they lived and regenerated(and that is much more like his original title for his book which his publisher renamed to Origin of Species
They, atheistic evolutionists, have not yet explained how order derives from chaos other than by repetition and accident. WE, my dad and I once found a mutant plant in the field of soy beans, when we planted its seed it came up looking just like all the other plants of soybeans and not like the mutated parent at all. Just an isolated incident I am sure.<8~)
RFR
That people get taller, bigger, stronger, faster and live longer and longer from generation to generation is a testament to evolution, not evolution as an explanation of life's appearance but that changes are enacted by natural forces and better decisions. Decisions the basis of which can often be attributed directly and obviously to God, read Leviticus and ask yourself how could man with the limited technology he had, come up with that system of food processing and acceptable foods without first killing himself off.
Rev
I do not deny that there is development and adaptation in life--micro-evolution, if I have to use the term. But, the jump from one species to another is not something I accept as fact--only theory that lacks scientific observation. I am sure the die-hard macro-evolutionist would take me to task on this point. However, my presuppositions, as his, will not change without incontrovertible proof to their contrary. So, we argue at an impasse, I am afraid.
We usually wind up where our presuppositions start.
Randy
Not to belabor the point, butI am not sure at all that Darwin believed that one species developed from another, but rather when two members of a species have startling differences in color, size, or behavior there is often an environmental input encouraging or even defining the differences within that species. Such as hydrangeas will bloom pink in alkaline soil and blue in acid soils. But D's observations were more generally with points of difference that were more permanent in nature.
Whatever our differences here I am sure you see that science can and does explain some things and takes pains before making those explanations 'law of science'.
I fervently believe that many things about God, while not dixcovered by scientists have been confirmed by scientists. The part that is confusing sometimes in scientific endeavour is that it is an effort to disprove something; once that has apparantly become impossible through standardized trial and testing, then that something must be true.
Did Adam have two hands and five fingers? How else could he have pruned the garden?
RFR
REV,
You are always good with an obtuse question as the end of an interesting point. lol
As far as science and its painstaking conclusions, I might defer to a scientist's comment. My gut feeling is every conclusion is derived in part from work, in part from presuppositions, in part from funding. As to the validity of the discovery--well, is chocolate good for me or bad for me? I can find any number of studies that say either answer. In the end, science can only interpret the evidence from a science-based perspective. Science observes truth and interprets it, just like theologians. The difference lies in the presuppositions of one's discpline.
And I was becoming afraid we were not agreeable!lol
rfr
oh, and, Randy,
Shouldn't funding be listed first, just as a truer reflection of the reporter's intents?
bfrank
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home