Ain\'t nature wonderful (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 15:46 (5162 days ago) @ dhw

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I would consider myself a creationist, agnostic in respect to the nature of the UI that created it, but a creationist none-the-less.
> 
> Oh dear, then we're back to the problem of definitions. By "Creationist" I understand someone who believes literally in the story recounted by Genesis, with the God of the OT creating each species separately. I don't think even David, who is a firm believer in a UI, would embrace that interpretation of life's history.
> -By Creationist, I mean that the Earth, Life, the Universe and everything was created by a UI. And, for what it's worth, you ought to re-read genesis. It NEVER, and I can't make that any clearer, NEVER says that he created each species individually. It says that God created genres of species, but it doesn't even speculate on the method he used to do so. It even accounts for Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapien arising at different points in history.-Translator Notes on Gen 1:26-The Hebrew word is אָדָם ('adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, "[that] they may rule" in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as "male and female" in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name 'humankind' (אָדָם)." The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.-And the Difference between that and Gen 2:18
tn Here for the first time the Hebrew word אָדָם ('adam) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name "Adam" rather than "[the] man." Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from "man" to "Adam" (e.g., NASB and NIV translate "Adam" here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use "the man"; the KJV uses "Adam" twice in v. 19).--The theory of evolution is actually congruent with the accounting given in Genesis provided one does not stick to a literal 24-hour day and other Literalist non-sense. There are even parts of Genesis that we have no way of accounting for the knowledge written. I posted a link in another thread of multiple oceans worth of water found deep in the Earths mantle, which relates quite well to the Gen 7:11 accounting of the flood where it says, "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth".