[_ Old Earth _] The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History

[Adam]

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (

b

-

-j

n

-s

s)
n.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.
Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

That doesn't answer the question.


It should also be pointed out the the "free dictionary" is not a scholarly source or of the same quality of actual biological references, namely because it is a data-mining service.


From its own website, a necessary disclaimer:

"All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional."

As well as:

"1. Content: All Content is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. Farlex does not make any warranty whatsoever, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the Content or the results to be obtained from using the Content, and Farlex will not be responsible for any claims attributable to errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies in the information contained therein. The entire risk of the results and performance of the Content is assumed by You, the user. Further, neither Farlex nor any of its data suppliers make any representations or warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the Content, including, but not limited to, the quality, performance, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose of the Content or any information contained therein."

 

[Sparkey]

abiogenesis [ˌeɪbaɪəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs] n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Also called autogenesis the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another name for spontaneous generation Compare biogenesis
[New Latin, from a- + bio- + genesis]

The Free Dictionary
__________________________________________________________
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
__________________________________________________________
Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia:
n. In biology, the production of living things otherwise than through the growth and development of detached portions of a parent organism; spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis was formerly supposed to prevail quite widely even among comparatively complex forms of life. It is now proved that it occurs, if at all, only in the simplest microscopic organisms, and the weight of evidence is adverse to the claim that it has been directly demonstrated there. The tendency of recent biological discussion, however, is toward the assumption of a process of natural conversion of non-living into living matter at the dawn of life on this earth. Also called abiogeny. See biogenesis and heterogenesis.
__________________________________________________________
GNU Webster's 1913:
n. (Biol.) The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation; -- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis.
__________________________________________________________
WordNet 3.0:
n. a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

I've quoted several sources. Pretty sure that the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition is a authoritative source. I'm not saying it is the ultimate source, no. I would be willing to stipulate that you are, but what I am saying is that this is truly a matter of semantics and not particularly germane to the conversation at large.

If memory serves, my post that included the definitions came after running down a rabbit of a different sort. Someone (was it you?) pointed out that I don't like being "pigeon holed" into saying what I did not mean. That might not be the case here, because it is entirely possible that cupid dave does enjoy that sort of thing, I can not say, but still the conversation meanders around the subject all too well.

 

[Adam]

Point made.

 

[cupid dave]

abiogenesis [ˌeɪbaɪəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs] n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Also called autogenesis the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another name for spontaneous generation Compare biogenesis
[New Latin, from a- + bio- + genesis]


__________________________________________________________
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
__________________________________________________________
Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia:
n. In biology, the production of living things otherwise than through the growth and development of detached portions of a parent organism; spontaneous generation.

GNU Webster's 1913:
n. (Biol.) The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents;spontaneous generation; -- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis.
__________________________________________________________


...this is truly a matter of semantics and not particularly germane to the conversation at large.

If memory serves, my post that included the definitions came after running down a rabbit of a different sort. Someone (was it you?) pointed out that I don't like being "pigeon holed" into saying what I did not mean. That might not be the case here, because it is entirely possible that cupid dave does enjoy that sort of thing, I can not say, but still the conversation meanders around the subject all too well.

?
I assume you are referring this to Adam's attention?



It has been shown that I have CORRECTLY used the term in the proper context.
Do you agree, both with the above, and... to the reference to your position, about the alternative to one short period of Spntaneous Generation of first life on Earth, followed by the evolution of that life into plants and animals?

 

[Sparkey]

?
I assume you are referring this to Adam's attention? [Yes.]
...

• Do you agree, both with the above

[I've given definitions only, do I agree that some people (experts?) define the term this way? Yes]​

• and... to the reference to your position

[Please quote my stated position without edit or comment and I'm sure you'll see; if I seem unclear, look further]​

• about the alternative to one short period of Spntaneous Generation of first life on Earth [sic]

[These are words that I recognize as "yours" and not "mine". Do you recall the observation about attempts to pigeon-hole me? There is a formal term for this type of fallacy, isn't there? Pretty sure you've heard it before, right?]​

• followed by the evolution of that life into plants and animals?

[see above]​

I'd like to be allowed to try to use a conflict solving technique based on finding common ground instead of polarizing debate techniques.

 

[Sparkey]

"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."

http://www.icr.org/article/4824/

Speaking as a moderator who is willing to call for help in this matter, let us now return to the subject.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Grazer]

God isn't a liar if he's not trying to teach science.

I like the analogy of a mother telling a child that she has a baby growing in her tummy. It's not accurate or true but it gets the point across

 

[Sparkey]

God isn't a liar if he's not trying to teach science.

I like the analogy of a mother telling a child that she has a baby growing in her tummy. It's not accurate or true but it gets the point across

And your point is also well said. Still, some may come and want to accuse God for not speaking accurately enough. My thought is that they have not extended sufficient effort toward understanding. Depart from evil, eschew evil, follow God. No, I'm not saying this to you, Grazer. But the understanding that comes must be accompanied by a direction away from sin. Without that primary change, no wisdom is being poured forth uninterrupted by the base nature. Yes, God is pouring forth knowledge in these days. Even on the whole world. What purpose shall we, who are even now in the tummy so-to-speak, put this knowledge to?

Building yes. But building what, exactly? I'm thinking that the beginnings are a very special point that God took pains to declare, it is said elsewhere that by this shall ye know that I am God. By what? By the fact that He has spoken the end, from the beginning.

 

[cupid dave]

God isn't a liar if he's not trying to teach science.

And God never actually tells us how he created life, in regard to what method(s) he may have used.

So, when the church people insist that each "kind" of creature was spontaneously generated, or the theistic evolutionist finds a correspondence with the theory of evolution, there is no justification whatsoever for such a private interpretation.
It is an opinion, and it tells us nothing about whether God has lied or not.

1) The issue here is that on the one side, Science says the Fundamentalist is misunderstand the Bible they read and would change science.

2) The Fundamentalist claims Science is wrong for attacking the fundamentalist view.

3) The Theistic Evolution believer says the Bible is right, and corresponds quite well with what science is just discovering.

The Reliability of the Whole Bible seems to Depend on one's ability to accept Genesis, in spite of those Bible interpretations that are merely opinions.

 

[stovebolts]

God isn't a liar if he's not trying to teach science.

1) The issue here is that on the one side, Science says the Fundamentalist is misunderstand the Bible they read and would change science.

2) The Fundamentalist claims Science is wrong for attacking the fundamentalist view.

3. The Fundamentalist claims that the same Observational Science that affirms an old earth can also support a young earth.

 

[Arch Angle]

that is true, we have many creation stories.

Greek.

American Indians (many)

bible

evolution.

aborigine

we put all the evidence out on the table and see what one matches best.

 

[cupid dave]

God isn't a liar if he's not trying to teach science.

1) The issue here is that on the one side, Science says the Fundamentalist is misunderstand the Bible they read and would change science.

2) The Fundamentalist claims Science is wrong for attacking the fundamentalist view.

3) The Theistic Evolution believer says the Bible is right, and corresponds quite well with what science is just discovering.

The Reliability of the Whole Bible seems to Depend on one's ability to accept Genesis, in spite of those Bible interpretations that are merely opinions.

3. The Fundamentalist claims that the same Observational Science that affirms an old earth can also support a young earth.

Since you say both are equally debatable, it would increase the size of the possible coverts to Christianity if the YECs would avoid the open dissemination of how they understand Geneis, and allow a theistic evolutionary explanation to express and promote that view to the next generation.
Why argue for Creationism with people who would willing read on when Genesis was uderstood as supported by evolution?



Bringing many more to Christ would be served by the over effort of the Bible believers to show the unbelievers that Genesis can equally well correspond to what Science has discovered.

 

[Roof]

it would increase the size of the possible coverts to Christianity if the YECs would avoid the open dissemination of how they understand Geneis, and allow a theistic evolutionary explanation to express and promote that view to the next generation.
Why argue for Creationism with people who would willing read on when Genesis was uderstood as supported by evolution?

When I found my first apartment, I seeked out a church. A few insistant YECs basically chased me out the door with their passion/insitance views. I stopped looking for a church thinking they were all that way. That lasted for about 15 years, when I finally found a girl to marry and investigated her church. Now I am a regular attendant and our son will soon be baptised.

 

[Sparkey]

it would increase the size of the possible coverts to Christianity if the YECs would avoid the open dissemination of how they understand Geneis, and allow a theistic evolutionary explanation to express and promote that view to the next generation.
Why argue for Creationism with people who would willing read on when Genesis was uderstood as supported by evolution?

When I found my first apartment, I seeked out a church. A few insistant YECs basically chased me out the door with their passion/insitance views. I stopped looking for a church thinking they were all that way. That lasted for about 15 years, when I finally found a girl to marry and investigated her church. Now I am a regular attendant and our son will soon be baptised.

Praising the Lord for you and your loved ones, Roof! Pray, pardon the zealous nature of our brothers, they know not what they do.

 

[stovebolts]

God isn't a liar if he's not trying to teach science.

1) The issue here is that on the one side, Science says the Fundamentalist is misunderstand the Bible they read and would change science.

2) The Fundamentalist claims Science is wrong for attacking the fundamentalist view.

3) The Theistic Evolution believer says the Bible is right, and corresponds quite well with what science is just discovering.

The Reliability of the Whole Bible seems to Depend on one's ability to accept Genesis, in spite of those Bible interpretations that are merely opinions.

3. The Fundamentalist claims that the same Observational Science that affirms an old earth can also support a young earth.

Since you say both are equally debatable, it would increase the size of the possible coverts to Christianity if the YECs would avoid the open dissemination of how they understand Geneis, and allow a theistic evolutionary explanation to express and promote that view to the next generation.
Why argue for Creationism with people who would willing read on when Genesis was uderstood as supported by evolution?



Bringing many more to Christ would be served by the over effort of the Bible believers to show the unbelievers that Genesis can equally well correspond to what Science has discovered.

I don't think what we're discussing is a salvation issue and I don't think it should divide a church. That being said, we don't have to pander to the secular world either. If somebody is going to stay away from Christ because they believe in Evolution, then God help their soul and as a church, shame on us!

The biggest issue with preaching on YEC is that it goes against everything our society is taught as "Fact". Evolution makes sense from the outside and the last thing we need to do is make people choose between Evolution and Christianity. However, It can also be said that Science causes people to leave the church because it sounds so much like a fairy tale in so many areas, especially Creation and the Flood. In short, it goes against the plain reading of the texts and people with half a brain see it as a fairy tale. If the Bible starts off as a fairy tale, then it must end in a fairy tale too. Have you visited with an Athiest lately? They can find many "good" reasons to discredit the validity of the Bible and guess what? Word's getting out.

If you ask my opinion, we need to teach both Evolution and Creation and let people decide for themselves. Again, the same science you use to prove the earth is 4.6 billion years can also validate a young earth.

 

[cupid dave]

it would increase the size of the possible coverts to Christianity if the YECs would avoid the open dissemination of how they understand Geneis, and allow a theistic evolutionary explanation to express and promote that view to the next generation.
Why argue for Creationism with people who would willing read on when Genesis was uderstood as supported by evolution?

When I found my first apartment, I seeked out a church. A few insistant YECs basically chased me out the door with their passion/insitance views. I stopped looking for a church thinking they were all that way. That lasted for about 15 years, when I finally found a girl to marry and investigated her church. Now I am a regular attendant and our son will soon be baptised.

Great.
We could have used you those last15 years as the church and the nation has gone to the dogs (i.e.; Hebrew for gentilies).
Whathas happened in America is that church attendance has dropped since the sexualrevolution of the Feminists in 1960.

Today's News stated that a poll shows 30% increase in the number of people checking off No Religion.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't think what we're discussing is a salvation issue and I don't think it should divide a church. That being said, we don't have to pander to the secular world either. If somebody is going to stay away from Christ because they believe in Evolution, then God help their soul and as a church, shame on us!

There is not one verse in genesis which opposes science and many uncanny cases where the Bible pre-dates the discoveries recently noted by science.

What I notice is that the Creationist people can not point out the verses which contradict evolution, since ToE refrs to the appearance of Plants and animals only, and Genesis merely notes that they DID appear.

In fact, Genesis confirms what science now calls Abiogenesis in that Gen 1:11 describes the Spontaneous Generation of "the first sprouts of life on Earth," (i.e.; called Grass by the JK interpretors).
There is absolutely no place in Genesis 1 where the Bible conflicts with evolution, because it NEVER says what method God employed.

The whole debate about ToE centers on ape to man theories.
But when we read Gen 4 and Gen 5 we find that the genealogy parallels the Paleontology one-to-one:

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[stovebolts]

However Cupid, the genealogical accounts in the Bible only add up to under 10,000 years. Evolution states millions.

 

[Arch Angle]

err, Jesus taught us not to believe religion alone and idols.

And nowhere did Jesus tell us to follow the bible literally.

so now what?

what other piece of data do you have?

 

[cupid dave]

However Cupid, the genealogical accounts in the Bible only add up to under 10,000 years. Evolution states millions.

True.
Those "species" lived only 950 years according to the statement in Gensis.

That in itself is difficult to support as a reasnable claim.
But it would also be reasonable to assume the Bible writers could NEVER have been more specific and said 950,000 years, which as we now know, is actully closer to the truth of the matter.

Caught between the Rock and and a hard plce, the option seems to be that the writers added the leeway, that a "day is like a thousand years to the lord."
With that crevat in mind, the parallels between paleontology and the genealogy compare quite well.