Unified Theory of Creation/Evolution

[jpierrh]

well from a scientific stand point truth is only considered the truth until it is proven otherwise, therefore the world being flat was the truth until it was found to be round.

I also agree that creation and evolution do not disprove each other but are 2 parts of the same coin.

in one hand we have no proof to show that creation happened some 6000 years ago ,but like it was previously stated there was no way for the ancients to tell how long ago man became intelligent. Im sure that although man had become intelligent he did not think of written language for a while.

back to the argument over what came first man or animals.
i belive the first chapter to be correct in saying the animals came first

the second chapter states God did not want man to be alone so he created animals, but it never states he created the animals after man.

also, you have to take prospective of who was writing this and when it was written. At this point in time women were not considered equals of men therefore to say god created woman first would culturally be unacceptable to people of this time period.

and again this all falls to personal interpretation. I'm not saying i'm right, but that doesn't mean im wrong

 

[Tiberius]

the second chapter states God did not want man to be alone so he created animals, but it never states he created the animals after man.

I'm afraid you are mistaken...

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

In verse 18, Adam is all by his lonesome, and God says that this isn't right, and decides to make an "help meet" for him. In verse 19, it clearly states that animals are formed. This is clearly occuring AFTER the creation of Adam.

The only way around this is to say that the animals were created before Adam, but not formed until after. If this is the case, please show me a picture of a created-but-not-formed animal, so I can see what exactly it would look like.

 

[jpierrh]

see but this is thinking in the concept of our time. God has been said to be independant of time, hence he knows man will exist, therefore leaving the verse to also mean, so that man will not be alone i will make help for him.
this also depends on which bible you read
1) the New Jerusalem Bible says,"It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper."
2) New American Bible," It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them

this can also be interpretted as he made them, made adam the brought the animals to him for him to name.

also, the creation story is just that, a story. were just trying to make sense out of a "bedtime story" that was told to explain existance.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

No, no. According to Genesis, God created the creatures of the sea and sky on the fifth day, before man, and the creatures of the land on the sixth day, before making man later that day.

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
but wait! In the next chapter the Bible contradicts itself (what? No...) saying that he made them after...

Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. I don't think you can use the Bible as the Be All and End All of an arguement such as that. You can try to rationalize it all you want, the fact remains that it's a contradiction in and of itself.

 

[Runlikethewind]

There are two distinct creation accounts in Genesis. The six day creation account in chapter 1 and the Garden of Eden account in chapter two. Biblical scholars belive that the Eden story is much older than the six day account by 600 years if I'm not mistaken. Therefore the two stories can be separated and their symbolism interpreted differently and primacy given to one or the other. The Eden story is much more mythopoetic and deals more with the human relation to God and creation while the six day account is more theological in nature and deals more with God's creative act. Therefore I feel that primacy can be given to this considering that it has animals being created before man and that is exactly the conclusions of modern science, animals came first. And as for the question concerning the rise of humans from animal state into intelligent states, this has more to do with the relation between humans and creation and is more likely symbolized by the actions in the Eden story.

Getting back now to the original theory we see that primacy is given to the six day account for the order of appearance and humans came after animals. The human rise from animal state is symbolized in the Eden story when God breathed the spirit into man, I believe, and not the eating from the tree. The eating from the tree symbolizes the fall of humans not because intelligence is bad and problematic in itself but because it can lead to such actions by misuse. Humans used their intelligence to rationalize why they should disobey God and eat from the tree. Granted they where tempted but this is no excuse. So I think that this is a slightly different interpretation from the original posted by Andreas.