THE HISTORY OF LIFE - Creation & Evolution (Free Book)
Christian
THE HISTORY OF LIFE
The 'family tree of heaven and earth'
according to the original text of the Bible
and the investigations of modern science
THE WORLDVIEW OF THE BIBLE
AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
Is the earth - according to the Bible - a disc, heaven a 'firmament'?
Did the Garden of Eden really exist?
Did God create the world in seven days?
Were Adam and Eve the first human beeings?
Is 'descent' an atheist or a biblical concept?
Where do sufferings and death in creation come from?
Was Noah's flood a local or a worldwide catastrophe?
What did really happen when the 'Tower of Babel' was built?
MODERN THEOLOGY -
helps and hindrances for a realistic understanding of the Bible:
Why Darwin could no longer believe in the Bible
Strong and weak points of the 'critical theology'
How to apply scientific methods to the Bible
Faith and natural science
Confessions of famous scientists
______________________________________________________
PREFACE:
Millions of people just can-not believe in the Bible!
For many, many people the first chapters of the Bible are not a help,
but much more a hindrance to faith.
The 'first book of Moses' seems to be in too much in opposition to the
findings of the natural sciences as to be taken seriously.
As a consequence, many people find no access to the most widely read
and most important book of human history.
This is because most people have but a very diffuse picture and
a superficial understanding of what the Bible really teaches.
Interpretations that go back to the Middle Ages have crept into
children's Bibles and saturated our minds with fabulous pictures
from childhood on.
Nor are the teachings of modern theology always very helpful -
to say the least.
What a pity that the following words of Jesus are especially true
for the first pages of the Bible, for its 'entrance'.
What should have been a 'stairway to heaven' has become
a 'stumbling-block' to faith:
Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away
the key to knowledge, and you have hindered those
who wanted to enter! (Luke 11:52)
It's hard to believe but it's just those who believe in the Bible who have
locked its 'door' for many people.
No wonder that many Bible-readers get stuck in the very first
chapters of the book.
Digging deeper ...
In fact, the first book of the Bible, the ancient 'Genesis', is like a
treasure which is buried under the rubble of centuries of human traditions.
The present investigation is intended to bring the original text
back to the light. But don't worry, we shall not have to drill deep
'theologic bore-holes'!
In many cases blowing away the dust from statements up to now
ignored will already be sufficient to let the original text shine up again.
Only the commonly recognized scientific dictionaries will serve us as
'spades' - simple and nevertheless very effective tools.
With their help we will be able to 'rescue' crucial statements from
underneath the many layers of human opinions.
Of course we shall not pull these single 'findings' out of their context but
shall - on the contrary - put the corresponding fragments together
before the eyes of the reader.
The Word so restored will become alive again:
Finally the most important witness will speak for itself!
THE STUMBLING BLOCK BECOMES A STEPPING-STONE
As long as we procede with scientific methods we shall make experiences
similar to those of explorers in the realm of the natural sciences:
One or the other well accepted dogma will be overthrown and some things
that appeared to be unbelievable will turn out to be true.
Certainly, seeking the truth costs a price.
But it also provides deep gain. One or the other 'stumbling block'
will in this way turn out to be a mile-stone on the way to the realization:
The creation-report of the Bible
is a 'display of distinction' of the Creator!
___________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The whole book at a glance
Creation & Evolution
The first chapter of the Bible is a family tree, describing the evolution of
life on earth. The sub-title of the creation report summarizes the whole
process with the following words:
These are the generations (Hebrew toledot=descent) of the heavens
and of the earth in their being created (Hebrew bara=creation)!
(Genesis 2:4)
The noun toledot used here is an Old Testament technical term for
lines of descent and genealogical trees.
Indeed, the first book of the Bible contains a family tree which starts
with the Spirit of God 'breeding' over the waters of the early earth.
Then it describes the development of life on earth in ascending order:
plants, water animals, land animals and at last mankind.
The evolution of life is closely interwoven with three specific creative
acts of God, which support it like pillars: The creation of 'heaven and
earth', the creation of 'living souls' and the creation of 'humans',
which is the dimension of spiritual life.
Scientifically speaking this corresponds to the 'Big Bang',
the sudden beginning of matter, space and time,
then the 'Cambric Explosion', the sudden appearance of animal life
nd finally the comet-like rise of mankind.
According to the Bible creation and evolution are not incompatible
or contradictory but two aspects of God's way to act - up to now!
IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
Usually, the second chapter of the Bible is interpreted as a 'second
creation report'. But Genesis 2 is not at all repetition but simply
the logical continuation of Genesis 1.
It describes what happened thereafter - otherwise it would
contradict the first chapter:
Adam descended from the humans of the sixth 'day' and lived
during the seventh 'day' in a precisely described landscape
in the Near East about 5000 years before Christ.
He was the first human being with whom God entered into
a personal covenant, he was the first elect.
His mandate was toestablish God's dominion over the fallen earth.
The Garden of Eden was a 'protected area'
which Adam explicitly had to 'guard'.
A spiritual battle is described that leads to the events of
Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel, and which is going on to this day.
A SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
If we want to treat the Bible properly we have to explore its ancient texts
with adequate methods.
The book of Genesis is the entrance and the foundation of the Bible,
and all the subsequent books are built upon this basis.
This is the reason why it is so important for us to really understand
the 'Book of the Beginnings', because otherwise our faith is built upon sand.
In the following, we will try to show how a scientific interpretation of the
original text can look like:
First the meaning of each Hebrew word will be explored by looking at
all Biblical passages where it appears (concordance)
and by considering its origin (ethymology).
Then it will be interpreted according to the context in which it is situated.
We shall use the commonly recognized dictionaries and want to enable
the reader to verify every argument.
The last section deals with the (German) historical-critical theology,
showing its strong points and weaknesses.
It is - even so as many 'christian' interpretations - based upon
centuries-old traditions that urgently need to be modernized and adjusted,
for example to the facts of archeological findings,
but also to the facts represented by the statements of the Hebrew Bible.
On the following internet site the book 'History of Life' can be viewed
or downloaded in its updated version,
in German or English, Works- or Word-format,
as well as texts on other subjects of christian faith:
Farrell Till
>CHRISTIAN
> THE HISTORY OF LIFE
>
> The 'family tree of heaven and earth'
> according to the original text of the Bible
> and the investigations of modern science
>
>THE WORLDVIEW OF THE BIBLE
>AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
>
>Is the earth - according to the Bible - a disc, heaven a 'firmament'?
>Did the Garden of Eden really exist?
>Did God create the world in seven days?
>Were Adam and Eve the first human beeings?
>Is 'descent' an atheist or a biblical concept?
>Where do sufferings and death in creation come from?
>Was Noah's flood a local or a worldwide catastrophe?
>What did really happen when the 'Tower of Babel' was built?
<snippity, snip, snip, snip>
TILL
"Christian," this forum exists to debate biblical inerrancy and not to give
you a forum to cut and paste website articles. I have written and
published hundreds of articles, but I don't impose on the patience of the
members of this forum by cutting and pasting them onto this site.
Please be more courteous.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jft...@theramp.net
Andromeda
>CHRISTIAN
> The noun toledot used here is an Old Testament technical term for
> lines of descent and genealogical trees.
> Indeed, the first book of the Bible contains a family tree which starts
> with the Spirit of God 'breeding' over the waters of the early earth.
> Then it describes the development of life on earth in ascending order:
> plants, water animals, land animals and at last mankind.
>
> The evolution of life is closely interwoven with three specific creative
> acts of God, which support it like pillars: The creation of 'heaven and
> earth', the creation of 'living souls' and the creation of 'humans',
> which is the dimension of spiritual life.
> Scientifically speaking this corresponds to the 'Big Bang',
> the sudden beginning of matter, space and time,
> then the 'Cambric Explosion', the sudden appearance of animal life
> nd finally the comet-like rise of mankind.
>
> According to the Bible creation and evolution are not incompatible
> or contradictory but two aspects of God's way to act - up to now!
ANDROMEDA
DAVE MATSON WROTE TO ME VIA EMAIL:
Thanks for your insight on studying Genesis. If I'm not mistaken,
Isaac Asimov once wrote a book comparing Genesis with modern
science, making every attempt to be fair. I think it was entitled
(as are several other books) "In the Beginning..." Your library
may have a copy, or one might be had by inter-library loan.
It may interest you to know that modern, flowering plants (and that
includes all grasses) basically evolved during the Tertiary. That
is, many animals (most dinosaurs for instance) lived and died
without ever seeing grass! Genesis gives the impression that
grass was there at the start, at least before most other plants.
Also interesting is that very recently a major milestone was
reached by astronomers, who can now date the universe to
13 some billion years. That is to say, a lot of things have been
going on for a long time before the sun came into being. I can
get more info on this if you wish.
-End of Dave Matson's email excerpt, to me
-Excellent & helpful information!
--
MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY IN PRIOR POST:
I was trying to reconcile Genesis with Evolution/Science...
here's the conclusion I came to :
I did some reading last night in the book from Discovery Channel, and
combined with some things some of the guys (Tom and Steven J.) on
alt.talk.creationism said about the age of rocks brought back from the moon.
4.5 bya. Just a little younger than the oldest rocks on earth.
What I read wrote in "Variations of Scientific Creationism" by Ed Babinski
about "Old Earth Creationism would only appear reasonable if the Hebrew
word olam (meaning long, indefinate time) appeared in place of the Hebrew
word for "day". (Which I assume is 'yom', according to Zodhiates book,
Complete Word Studies of Old Testament). Okay... with that in
consideration, I thought about it. (GENESIS MAKES NO SENSE!)
(Thank you Mr. Babinski.)
And then, there's the problem with even if the earth were around
long before the other bodies out in the solar system... there's no way to
carbon date the sun of course... no way that we can't prove it wasn't
created 600 million years ago. But... the moon was around 4.5 bya. And
Genesis states that the moon and sun were created in the same time frame.
So, that rules that out, from happening. The earth & moon are about as old
as one another. Therefore, one can assume the Sun is about the same age.
So much for the verse in Genesis, indicating complex plant life before the
sun...
Gn:1:11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the
earth: and it was so.
The question even came to mind, could it be, that there were
non-photosynthetic plants/trees/grass/etc., before sunlight... I learned
that there's nothing except the Ediacaran fossils, which are no more older
than the Vendian which of course 650-540 million years ago. Even if these
were some kind of early "trees and grass", that would NEED TO make the sun
and moon be no more than around 500 million years old. Already stated that
it can't be so... because the rocks on the moon date 4.5 bya.
The "failed prophecy" I found between Genesis and Isaiah, which
one states the snake would eat dust NOW, and Isaiah prophecies
FUTURE when snakes will eat dust.
So, it was a failed prophecy in Genesis.
Beyond doubt, things do not add up between Genesis and Science.
But my oh my, it is *so close*. Animals coming out of the ocean just like
evolution teaches... "after their kind" which implies evolution... Adam even
being named as "not a man to till the ground"... the first farmer, in
Mesopotamia - which coincides with what archaeology teaches.
Even the order of the creatures is so parallel to what evolution teaches...
creatures "moving" on their own ... complex creatures, beyond the sponge
then comes birds, then whales, then cattle, then man.
It's so close it could deceive a person to believe in the "evolution-gap"
theory. I thought that it was true. But I see it's not.
It is so close.
The thought went through me to question IS THERE PROOF, of any life,
before the sun? At 4.5 billion years... the approx. age of the Sun?
No... only until 600 million years ago. Beyond that... single-celled
organisms. Bacteria... blue-green algae...
chemosynthetic bacteria, etc. That would hardly qualify as grass and
trees... like was stated about "seed bearing" or "fruit bearing".
That didn't happen.
My book here on Paleobotany states that during the mid-Silurian,
438-408 mya ...were the first vascular plants (probably among the first
land-plants) the Devonian (408-360 mya) brought forth diversification of
vascular plants, all major groups except flowering plants present by end of
Devonian.
It never seems to state when flowering plants evolved. From what I saw in a
news-brief on the NG CD-Rom collection though, about a year or so ago, they
were searching for fossil evidence of the eldest flowering plant
ancestor(s).
Oh well, I thought I'd share that with you.. I rejected Genesis today.
It does not reconcile with science.
I'm learning that most of Genesis is rooted in Babylonian
and Egyptian mythology!
--
Quick! Jump under the bed. There is an old lady with a cell phone
watching you. No, wait -- not under the bed, there is a sexual pervert
under there. Hide in the closet and act invisible. No, that will not work
either. There is a pagan in the closet. Maybe two.
Maybe it is time pack up your things and get out of Babylon before the
cameras are installed in every corner.
Surely there is someplace where the new world order is not watching.
Hurry, I hear the beast. I think he is looking for you.
-ot rfz com fn
Ray Peare
"Andromeda" <androm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60e4456933052846...@news.teranews.com...
RIP3035
I have note posted here before and am usually happy to just read and try to
learn from those who have written here. However, this last post from
Andromeda brought me out.
The Bible in Genesis as near as I can tell does not anywhere imply that
plants came before the sun.
In verse 1 God creates the heavens and the earth (which by the way is at
that time formless and empty).
Then from this state God moves on in verse 3 to create light -- the first
act to bring order to his creation -- Genesis is now focused on the ordering
of the earth (no pretense as to what has or has not transpired in the
heavens seems to me to be indicated here). He describes how the light is
breaking through the darkness that has overshadowed the earth in its
original state.
Verse 6 speaks of how the earth is further ordered to the expanse between
the waters above and the waters below the expanse -- this would indicate a
thick cloud covering around the earth at that time (this would explain why
longer lives would be achievable without the radiation of our present state
after the great flood of Noah's time).
Verse 9 speaks of the dry land separating and gathering the waters below the
expanse. Here again, we are talking about the ordering of the earth.
Finally, in verse 11, with an environment similar to a greenhouse -- is it
any wonder that God would order vegetation -- this progression has nothing
to do with the universe -- it only shows the progression of heavens first
with a formless void that would eventually by God's hand would be ordered
into existence in a natural progression.
I am sorry if I misunderstood your post Andromeda, I just had to present
what Genesis states. I am not arguing its truth or merits here. I am just
trying to set the record straight that the lights were created long before
the vegetation. Thanks.
Christian
The sun was created 'in the beginning' as part of 'heaven and earth'.
Its light was to be seen from the first day on.
On the fourth day it deals with the 'lights',
the word 'sun' or 'moon' is not even mentioned.
The atmosphere changed, sun, moon and stars could from
then on be seen as 'lights'.
Read my book, and many of your objections just fall away.
But one has to read the text,
not to read into it.
Ciao,
Christian
Jason Long
>
> Oh well, I thought I'd share that with you.. I rejected Genesis today.
> It does not reconcile with science.
>
> I'm learning that most of Genesis is rooted in Babylonian
> and Egyptian mythology!
JASON
I rejected Genesis first as well. Next up, the rest of the books of Moses.
--
Jason Long
"business...numbers...money...people..."
Christian
>TILL
> "Christian," this forum exists to debate biblical inerrancy and not to give
> you a forum to cut and paste website articles. I have written and
> published hundreds of articles, but I don't impose on the patience of the
> members of this forum by cutting and pasting them onto this site.
CHRISTIAN
If you have written such a lot,
perhaps you may take the time and read a little ... ?
Even if I am not confirming your faith in scepticism,
it might be interesting for you to get some more information
about what the Book really says.
Is 'debate' the main goal of this newsgroup -or 'learning'?
Then 'debate' would be just one means among others.
Reading can be very helpful, if you are willing to learn ...
Bye!
Christian
Andromeda
>ray
> I am sorry if I misunderstood your post Andromeda, I just had to present
> what Genesis states. I am not arguing its truth or merits here. I am
just
> trying to set the record straight that the lights were created long before
> the vegetation. Thanks.
>
Andromeda: (borrowed some clip & paste from Libertarius) :
I believe what Libertarius is pointing out, is that the light in Genesis 1:3
& 1:4
indicates "spiritual light", versus physical white light, as there were no
heavenly
bodies in space until the fourth day.
Libertarius:
You state: "This light is dividing from, or
pulling away from the darkness. It's also good
to note that darkness is never given a "good"
stamp, here in Genesis, or anywhere throughout
the whole Bible. This Darkness is in fact being
pushed aside by the light. This light also can't
be physical light as there are no physical
luminaries yet. That means this light is spiritual
light, which means that darkness is spiritual
darkness, which means that this darkness is
none other than Satan the Devil."
WHO is said to create that DARKNESS?
Isaiah 45:7
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
WHO surrounds HIMSELF with darkness?
Psalms 18:9,11
He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With thick darkness under His feet.
He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him,
Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.
Psalms 97:2
Clouds and thick darkness surround Him;
Andromeda
> I am sorry if I misunderstood your post Andromeda, I just had to present
> what Genesis states. I am not arguing its truth or merits here. I am
>just trying to set the record straight that the lights were created long before
> the vegetation. Thanks.
>
ANDROMEDA:
Gn:1:14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
"To give light upon the earth, and it was so." One can conclude, there was
no
light on the earth, until Day Four of the Genesis account. Literal light
from the
sun... where photosynthesis could occur. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Andromeda
> I am sorry if I misunderstood your post Andromeda, I just had to present
> what Genesis states. I am not arguing its truth or merits here. I am
just
> trying to set the record straight that the lights were created long before
> the vegetation. Thanks.
>
Andromeda:
I don't know enough to argue this, but evidently Christian scholars feel
that the evolution-gap theory does not work, due to the sun being created
on the 4th day. I am quoting from "The Complete Word Studies of the
Old Testament" by Spyros Zodhiates, page 3
"The literal day theory accepts the clear meaning of the text: the universe
was created in six literal days. The various attempts to join together the
biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable even by
the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct
opposition
to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light)."
-End of Excerpt
There are indication of one-cell bacteria/micro-organisms as far back as
3.86 billion years ago. Meanwhile, the eldest known fossils for complex
organisms, to my knowledge dates back a mere six hundred million years
to the Vendian, and science is very unclear on exactly what these organisms
were. "Ediacaran Fossils" they're called.
The above is beyond reconciliation to my knowledge, with the Sun's date
being set at 4.5 billion years ago. I simply have never seen in any science
text,
where it states that complex life such as trees and grass existed before the
sun.
That is what Genesis indicates.
What source for the "light" mentioned in Genesis 1:3? I don't know.
But Genesis 1:15 seems to indicate the first exposure to sunlight, and most
mainline scholars tend to agree with that, according to Zodhiates.
Ray Peare
Ray
Thanks for the clarification. I'll go back to reading and learning.
Andromeda
"Ray Peare" <rpe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:86ea466b3c8197fb...@news.teranews.com...
> Ray
> Thanks for the clarification. I'll go back to reading and learning.
>
Andromeda:
You and me, both.
--
Quick! Jump under the bed. There is an old lady with a cell phone
watching you. No, wait -- not under the bed, there is a sexual pervert
under there. Hide in the closet and act invisible. No, that will not work
either. There is a pagan in the closet. Maybe two.
Maybe it is time pack up your things and get out of Babylon before the
cameras are installed in every corner.
Surely there is someplace where the new world order is not watching.
Hurry, I hear the beast. I think he is looking for you.
-ot rfz com fn
"Christianity, Astrology and Myth" send S.A.S.E. for catalog
Dave Matson, editor The Oak Hill Free Press P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116
spamblocker...@compuserve.comspamblocker