this is different. you are talking about complex enzymes that do the job. but these enzymes did not exist at first.
(1) To make the play on words work in Hebrew, I would suggest that you transliterate it as “the dust of the HA’ADAMAH”, so that the HA’ADAM was made from the HA’ADAMAH. (Thus, the dirtman was made from the dirt.)
It is also worth mentioning that Ecclesiastes 3:19 states that upon their death animals in general return to the dust from which they came.
(2) No. You are confusing proximate causation versus ultimate causation. Yes, the Genesis text says that HA’ADAM was made from the dust of the ground but it does NOT tell us that that soil was made de nova—or creatio ex nihilo just prior, for that matter, without any prior transformation processes. So there is nothing in what I’ve described that is “explicitly against what the Bible is saying.”
You are free to believe that the chemical elements of the earth’s crust (aka “dust of the ground”) did not form in stars—but let’s not pretend that the Bible states something which would specifically deny this. Moreover, God reveals to us the history of the universe NOT just in the scriptures but also in the created world itself. Theologians call this general revelation in order to distinguish it from special revelation (the revelation which includes scripture and prophecy.) You appear to imply that God’s special revelation is trustworthy but that his general revelation is not. I strongly deny such a view. God is not a deceiver. He does not plant “false stories” in his creation.
Yes, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything published about vita ex nihilo. That’s not a “story” familiar to me. Can @thoughtful provide a citation supporting her claim?
And the atoms didn’t exist at first either. So we can agree on that. DNA bases and complex enzymes formed by natural processes. Nothing in scripture denies this.
2 Likes
I think everyone who replied misunderstood me or I wasn’t clear, so I’m quoting all replies to clarify.
No.
God didn’t create life out of nothing; but I am saying he didn’t create it from dying stars. Earth was formed first, then the heavens. Earth was not made out of stars.
Exactly. Since science has only hypotheses and stories, I will believe the Bible. There’s no reason for Christians to accept science that can’t tell us yet how life began when the Bible does tell us how it began.
Yes, that’s why I was protesting that everyone should not agree. That absolute got me frustrated.
No, I’m saying we should think each of all texts of Scripture having a purpose in every age and that God was sovereign over this process of inspiration. If you interpret Genesis 1 and 2 to be mostly metaphorical or figurative, I don’t see how you don’t come to the conclusion that God did NOT want His people to know the actual process until science explained it to us in our age. That’s part of why I think that interpretation is not one that holds up as the only interpretation. Sure Genesis 1 can be figurative of building a temple, but that’s not all it is for me and for most Christians throughout history.
Yes, it does. The earth was formed before the stars. Plus all of the times we read God stating He laid the foundation of the earth and stretched the heavens. It’s always in that order - earth, then heavens. No I don’t think that’s only phenomenological language.
I agree.
Not what I’m claiming. I’ve actually said only the first few verses of Genesis clearly show creation ex nihilo. Everything else could have been formed out of that preexisting matter created out of nothing.
11 posts were split to a new topic: Genesis 1: YOM as 24 hour days or periods of time
Hey Rumraket,
To my knowledge the story of Jacob referenced has primarily been interpreted to be a form of selective breeding not “magical sticks” forming different breeds of livestock. I’m sure it was not difficult for ancient farmers to deduce that if you train certain animals to breed that it can influence the outcome of the offspring.
Who has interpreted it that way, and how can they possibly get that out of the story, which is quite clear?
1 Like
So Mikkel @Rumraket , you always get me looking up interesting things. I had forgotten the sticks part of the story and was had forgotten it was about Jacob. First thing in my head was Isaac.
Anyway, I was googling it, and the first thing that came up was an AIG article defending some portions of the text as scientific. Because of course. 
But I reread the chapters and the article. It’s actually pretty interesting.
The sticks were also in the water, not in the ground.
Several studies have been done on poplar and almond tree bark, leaves, nuts, and twigs (small diameter branches, or what Scripture called “sticks”), and they mentioned that sheep would eat these and that ewes especially benefitted from them. Also, many of the chemical compounds would still be beneficial even by simply steeping in water. Some of those benefits are highlighted below.
Here is an article discussing the topic:
1 Like
While discussions of whether striped sticks can influence coat patterns has dominated a lot of discussions about this famous passage in recent centuries, the main point of the story sometimes gets lost. Jacob was a conniver and a trickster, using whatever trick he could think of to try and gain advantage over others. Moreover, the passage never actually states that his striped sticks produced the desired effects (and thereby more wealth for Jacob) but clearly Jacob thought the sticks were effective. (No doubt he thought himself quite clever.) Yet, The overarching theme of the Jacob pericopes is that God was determined to bless him, even despite his often questionable choices.
To Jewish readers, this episode was a fun story about how one of their heroes got the better of someone who was an impediment to getting what he wanted. And God blessed Jacob with more sheep because that was God’s plan and Jacob’s “magic sticks” don’t get the credit.
And welcome to Peaceful Science, @bodette.
1 Like
Thank you for the welcome!
1 Like
The Bible teaches abiogenesis too.
That’s objectively false. Science has evidence. Science has repeatedly tested hypotheses that have graduated to theories.
It’s pretty sad that you have to so blatantly misrepresent science to justify your minority interpretation of the Bible.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.