Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[BCSpace]

So the Church itself thinks of Genesis 1 as metaphorical?

Yep. OT Student manual.

That just sweeps things under the rug; it doesn't solve the problem you face.

What problem? To an LDS person, Genesis 1 is the spiritual creation and Genesis 2 is the physical (Genesis 2:4-5). And then we go straight the the making of the garden whcih means there are no details for the physical creation.

[J.S. Mill]

Please explain to me what

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

and

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

refer to, if not literal 24-hour days.

[J.S. Mill]

Yep. OT Student manual.

Okay, so why doesn't the Church interpret proscriptions against homosexuality metaphorically? (There are Christian churches that do just that, you know.)

What problem? To an LDS person, Genesis 1 is the spiritual creation and Genesis 2 is the physical (Genesis 2:4-5). And then we go straight the the making of the garden whcih means there are no details for the physical creation.

So "creating the Earth" doesn't actually mean "creating the Earth" in a Biblical context? Of what use is the Bible if you can't trust it to mean what it clearly says?

[BCSpace]

Okay, so why doesn't the Church interpret proscriptions against homosexuality metaphorically? (There are Christian churches that do just that, you know.)

I've told you twice already. We know exactly what homosexuality is.

What problem? To an LDS person, Genesis 1 is the spiritual creation and Genesis 2 is the physical (Genesis 2:4-5). And then we go straight the the making of the garden whcih means there are no details for the physical creation.

So "creating the Earth" doesn't actually mean "creating the Earth" in a Biblical context? Of what use is the Bible if you can't trust it to mean what it clearly says

What makes you think you can't trust the Bible in this case? I showed you the verses that clearly delineate between the actual physical creation of the earth and what went on prior. Some religions (JW's I believe) take this to mean that the earth was created, then destroyed, then created again. LDS know better from Moses 2 and 3.

And all that is before evolution was even a twinkle in Darwin's eye so it is ridiculous to think that the Church is sweeping anything under the rug.

[J.S. Mill]

So "created the Earth" in fact does NOT mean "created the Earth". Gotcha.

[BCSpace]

So "created the Earth" in fact does NOT mean "created the Earth".

Created indeed means created. Just not in the way you need it to be to win this debate. Moses 3:4-5

Checkmate.

[J.S. Mill]

I'm reading that passage and I don't see where it explains your position:

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

So there was a spiritual creation... but NOT of the Earth, which is exactly our bone of contention. You need to find some other material to back you up here.

[BCSpace]

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

So there was a spiritual creation... but NOT of the Earth, which is exactly our bone of contention. You need to find some other material to back you up here.

Sure it does. Just read your own quotation. Did the Lord not speak of the earth in Genesis 1:1, Moses 2:1?

How many times must I give your king back in order to be checkmated? lol

[J.S. Mill]

For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air

The physical Earth, then, was already created at that point. My king's doing fine, thanks.

[BCSpace]

The physical Earth, then, was already created at that point

Spiritually that is, yes.

[J.S. Mill]

The physical Earth was created spiritually. You should be a contortionist.

[LDSMusic483]

Yep. OT Student manual.

What problem? To an LDS person, Genesis 1 is the spiritual creation and Genesis 2 is the physical (Genesis 2:4-5). And then we go straight the the making of the garden whcih means there are no details for the physical creation.

That is incorrect, the church does not believe that Genesis 1 is the spiritual creation. This has been gone over.

[BCSpace]

That is incorrect, the church does not believe that Genesis 1 is the spiritual creation. This has been gone over.

Must not have been gone over in any doctrinal sense then.

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

Spirit Creation

See also Create, Creation; Man, Men

The Lord created all things spiritually before he created them physically (Moses 3: 5).

The Lord made every plant before it was in the earth, Gen. 2: 4-6 (Abr. 5: 5). By the power of my Spirit created I all thingsâ??first spiritual, secondly temporal, D&C 29: 31-32. That which is temporal is in the likeness of that which is spiritual, D&C 77: 2. I made the world and men before they were in the flesh, Moses 6: 51.

All three creation acounts (Genesis, Moses, Abraham) testify of this, that the creative process in Genesis 1 was spiritual, in some fashion or another. Abraham 4 and 5 is the most clear.

[semlogo]

Genesis says that the sixth day (on which Adam was made) is composed of a morning and an evening. What literal definitions of "morning" and "evening" do you have to correspond to an old-Earth creation story?

Morning could easily refer to the first part of a period of time, and the evening as the end of a period of time. The words are used metaphorically all the time.

We should all hope that Genesis is metaphorical. Because otherwise it's in error.

[semlogo]

So "creating the Earth" doesn't actually mean "creating the Earth" in a Biblical context? Of what use is the Bible if you can't trust it to mean what it clearly says?

Much of the OT reads like myth and "Just So" stories.

[LDSMusic483]

Must not have been gone over in any doctrinal sense then.

All three creation acounts (Genesis, Moses, Abraham) testify of this, that the creative process in Genesis 1 was spiritual, in some fashion or another. Abraham 4 and 5 is the most clear.

As I said before, that the three accounts give credence to a spiritual creation, this is true. But we do not have an account of this creation on record. If Gen 1 was the spiritual creation, then the creation of the "first man" would be the creation of Jesus Christ, he being the first creation in the spiritual sense. The account in Moses says that the individuals who were creating this first man included Jesus Christ. So the reference in Gen 1 has to be referring to Adam.

[Hoops22]

We should all hope that Genesis is metaphorical. Because otherwise it's in error.

I would respectfully disagree. Gen is not metaphorical. It means to read what it reads. You may think it's false, and that's fine, but when one considers it metaphorical or false one then must encounter a great deal of problems with the rest of the bible.I suspect you're fine with that.

As I said before, that the three accounts give credence to a spiritual creation,

I don't see that.

If Gen 1 was the spiritual creation, then the creation of the "first man" would be the creation of Jesus Christ,

Interesting point that I have not thought about.

[semlogo]

I would respectfully disagree. Gen is not metaphorical. It means to read what it reads. You may think it's false, and that's fine, but when one considers it metaphorical or false one then must encounter a great deal of problems with the rest of the bible.I suspect you're fine with that.

No, I believe in Christ, I'm LDS. But we know for a fact there was no global flood. Either the story is exaggerated or it's metaphorical or it's just false.

There isn't any wiggle room here of "well, it's a theory, it may be 95% proven, but we don't know for sure." We know for sure, 100% that there was no global flood - certainly not within recorded human history.

[LDSMusic483]

I would respectfully disagree. Gen is not metaphorical. It means to read what it reads. You may think it's false, and that's fine, but when one considers it metaphorical or false one then must encounter a great deal of problems with the rest of the bible.I suspect you're fine with that. ;)I don't see that.Interesting point that I have not thought about.

I meant the 3 accounts that LDS have as a whole. Gen 2 has a slightly odd reading to it. Moses 3 opens the understanding to the spiritual creation. I wouldn't expect you to "see it" from the bible only.

[Bee Eff]

Genesis says that the sixth day (on which Adam was made) is composed of a morning and an evening. What literal definitions of "morning" and "evening" do you have to correspond to an old-Earth creation story?

The definition of "morning" includes in its definition list: the earliest period.

The definition of "evening" includes in its definition list: a later concluding time period.

Thus, Genesis verses containing such could be translated as this: "And the [last period] and the [first period] were the... [creative time period]."

Taken entirely literally the verse does not require a 24 hour period.

[Hoops22]

No, I believe in Christ, I'm LDS. But we know for a fact there was no global flood. Either the story is exaggerated or it's metaphorical or it's just false.

There isn't any wiggle room here of "well, it's a theory, it may be 95% proven, but we don't know for sure." We know for sure, 100% that there was no global flood - certainly not within recorded human history.

No, we don't know that at all. In fact, it's impossible to ever know that something is not true.

[littlechild]

You're right-- interesting.

Here's another discovery I wasn't aware of: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/....html?ref=world

It's as certain as any other conjecture about evolution I've ever seen:

"But until more is known about what FOXP2 does in the brain, it is hard to know what powers were conferred by the sweep, said Gary Marcus, a psychologist at New York University who has written about the evolution of language. "Perhaps Neanderthals had some rudiments of language, but then again, maybe not.""

Maybe - maybe not. Sounds like the fossil record you mentioned too. Maybe if evolution were true we would see a sequential progression through the various geological strata, of simple organisms to more complex ones - but of course that hope is dashed to pieces by the actual evidence.

And so it goes with every piece of evidence proferred by neo-Darwinists - the conclusions are always tentative, always subject to further insights, maybe this and perhaps that. Its a fine theory for generalists but when you press for details you find they shift to accomodate some other configuration of the so-called facts. For any given evolutionary forms, just ask for the precursors, and you get either stony silence or a hundred conflicting ideas and conjectures, or you get an apathetic instructor saying, "Dawkins says it so , so its so. " Right.

I'm going back now, to perch on my phylogenetic tree. It would seem I can perch anywhere - because its open seating.

[thesometimesaint]

Now we off into the twilight zone. Cue the music please.

[littlechild]

Much of the OT reads like myth and "Just So" stories.

You mean like Darwin.

[littlechild]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Evolution enjoys a priveleged status amongst modern academia, far outstripping its usefulness as science. It tells us that speciation occurs, something which has never been witnessed, and for which no experiments have ever produced evidence of feasibility.

We are commanded to listen the "fact" of evolution by supposedly intelligent men, (Sagan, Dawkins), but what are we shown? Finches with larger beaks, but no examples of any animals turning into more complex ones. We have exactly zero examples of any increases in genetic information by adaptation or natural selection.

Instead, during the 40 years that Piltdown Man was taken seriously by scientists, we have around 500 doctoral dissertations on its authenticity before it was discovered to be a hoax.

Similarly, we have Sagan blathering on about how we are cousins to the oak tree, and Dawkins telling us that certain species of halibut have eyes on top of their head from eons of crawling on the sea bottom. But not a single instance of an increase of genetic material, or an instance of any more complex animal descending from a simpler one.

If evolution were true in the slightest, since there are two to ten million species on the earth, we should be witnessing significant numbers of new life forms developing, but we don't see that.

In fact what we see are experiments which show that when given the chance, no new genetic information is produced over thousands of generations of microbiological life. The predictions of evolution fall flat on their face.