Genesis ≠ Evolution: Kinds

            In the last post, I talked about how the “days” to “ages” argument from theistic 

evolutionists (and OECs, though they are not the topic of this post) does not fit with the literal 

details Moses provided. The subject of this post will be another oft-mentioned phrase Moses uses 

in Genesis one. In verses 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25, Moses writes, “after his kind.”

            He writes that the trees yielded fruit after his kind (11 and 12). He wrote that the great 

whales and every sea creature after his kind (21). He does the same with land animals. What does 

this mean for theistic evolutionists? Before we get to that, let’s examine the word “kind”.

            The Hebrew word for “kind” is min. Min meant the definition of “species” in the past, but 

it does not mean the definition of “species” today. When we call something a species today, it is 

very specific and exclusive in that, for an animal to be one of that specie, it has to meet certain 

detailed requirements. No, that is not the “species” min means. I will give you the link to the article at 

the end, but for now, min meant and means something closer along the lines of today’s genus (species 

is the most specific classification, with genus being second closest to it). So when Moses wrote that 

they reproduced “after their kind”, he was saying they would produce similarly to the English 

definition of genus.

            Now back to theistic evolution (TE). This is a problem for this camp because they want 

to incorporate evolution into the Bible. The problem is that the Bible makes it very difficult for 

them to do that. You see, for Moses to be correct in saying that the birds and the bees reproduced after 

their own kind (genus), that means that they cannot and have not changed into other kinds.

            This is the crux of evolution. Evolution states that one-celled organisms evolved into 

multiple-celled organisms that gradually evolved into larger and larger organisms until they 

reached… us! For evolution to be true, animals have to be able to change kinds. Moses puts a 

kabosh on that by saying, “Nope! Once they were created, these animals only produced 

offspring of the same kind.” There were and are different species, sure. We see that when new types of 

dogs are bred. But that dog cannot become a pig. Naturally, observational evidence backs this up.

            Evolution is molecules to man, kind to another kind. The Bible clearly does not support 

this. God wrote that the kinds (dogs, cats, whales) reproduced after their kind. Whenever you 

are debating (nicely and with love) a TE, just state that evolution can’t be true because “all 

animal kinds have only reproduced after their kind. Molecules to man goes against the Bible.” At this 

point, you’ll have God’s Word on your side. You can show them where God wrote that animals 

produced after their kind, and not any other.

            What response will he or she give you? I don’t know, but it probably will be a shrug and 

a “Genesis is symbolic” argument, which doesn’t answer your argument. If Genesis is symbolic, 

TEs have to be able to defend its symbolism. They can’t do that, because there are too many 

literal details. I’ve just given another one.

P.S. The link is here.

Genesis ≠ Evolution: Daily Days

            The mantra theistic evolutionists (TEs) rally behind is Genesis is not literal. If Genesis is 

not literal, than that means the world could’ve been created by the Big Bang. Life could’ve come 

from goo. If Genesis is not literal, evolution is true.

            This is why establishing Genesis as literal is extremely important. There are several 

indicators for the Bible reader that Genesis is literal. I will go through one now.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            Moses repeats one phrase six times in the first chapter. Now, whenever you read the 

Bible, it is important to understand that when something is repeated several times, it is important. 

I’m not saying that points made once in the Bible aren’t important, but God didn’t make it an 

absolute priority to get them across.

            What is this phrase? “And the evening and the morning were the (first, second, third, etc.) 

day.” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31) In the Hebrew/Israelite culture, the day began with the 

evening (night), and ended during the morning. This is significant because, if the word “day” 

wasn’t meant to be taken literally, Moses wouldn’t have written those literal details.

            In English, the word “day” can mean different things. Here is a demonstration: in my 

grandfather’s day (era, period), during the day (when the sun is out), he would play all day (24 

hours). While the ending is ridiculous, the point is that “day” can have different meanings. But, 

as always, qualifiers are important. The first “day” meant era because I mentioned my 

grandfather owning it (grandfather’s), which only makes sense if I meant era. The second “day” 

was qualified by me writing “during,” which only makes sense if I meant a certain time of day 

(when the sun was out). The third “day” was qualified by me mentioning “all,” which only 

makes sense if I meant the entire day (24 hours).

            Moses “qualified” (defined, added details to) the word “day” by adding “evening and the 

morning.” The only satisfactory explanation for “evening and morning” is that Moses was being 

literal.

            TEs have a problem with this because they want to believe that “day” means “ages.” If 

the word “day” was by itself, they would have a case. Unfortunately for them, Moses added 

details to Genesis. If “day” means “ages,” does “evening” mean “half of an age” and “morning” 

the “other half of that age”? Evening and morning do not fit into that definition of day. Does 

evening mean half of a billion years, and does morning mean the other half?

            No, in the Hebrew/Israelite culture, the literal day started with evening, and ended in the 

morning. To convey the literal meaning of Genesis, Moses included those details.

            How’s that for a tidy explanation?

            Whenever a TE talks to me about Genesis being non-literal, I ask, “Why did Moses write 

‘evening and morning’ when referring to ‘day’? The qualifiers ‘evening and morning’ do not 

make sense if ‘day’ means ‘age.’”

            I have yet to hear (and see) a better example than a shrug and, “Well, Moses was being  

poetic.” Which doesn’t even come close to answering why he qualified “day” the way he did.

P.S. The Hebrew word for day is yom, I think.

The Debate of Debates

            Theistic evolutionists hold that God used evolution to bring us to where we are now (atheists 

believe in evolution without God). They may or not believe that Adam and Eve existed. If they do, a lot 

believe Adam and Eve were just two of many other humans that evolved at the same time. God just 

chose them for some reason.

            What is wrong with this position? The problems with theistic evolution basically fall into two 

camps. The first is that the Bible does not support the big bang and molecules to man. The second 

reason is that historical science does not support evolution, period (theistic or atheistic). For now, I will 

focus on the former.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            Why am I focusing on the the incompatibility of the Bible and evolution? It is because, in the 

end, debating over science doesn’t end anything. There are three reasons for this. The first is that people 

are biased. Many think that if they are as unbiased as possible and try to neutrally examine the 

evidence, they will come to the correct conclusion. This is impossible. Atheists look at evidence and 

will not allow for the possibility of a God. Theists look at the same evidence and will not allow for the 

possibility that it came about by random chance. Our bias shows up immediately.

            The second problem with trying to win this debate with science is these little things called 

rescuing devices. What are these things? They are basically speculations with no evidence to support 

them. Why do they exist then? Well, they have to exist if a position (such as theistic evolution or 

creation) is to be true.

            For example, there are certain comets that are very young. This is a problem for evolutionists, 

because they believe the world to be billions of years old. This means that the comets were not created 

from the big bang; they had to have been created afterwards. Why is this a problem? This is a problem 

because now evolutionists have to find where they came from and how they were created. To solve this 

problem, evolutionists created something called the Oort Cloud. This hypothetical cloud exists just 

outside the reach of the best telescopes (how convenient), and it is an icy mass. From this mass, comets 

are broken off and enter our orbit.What is the problem with this? There is NO evidence that the Oort 

Cloud exists. It is a rescuing device that has to be true if evolution is to be true. In a debate, evolutionists 

will invoke it.

            On the creation side, one rescuing device I have to invoke involves light. I will post on this 

later, but the problem is that if the world is only 6,000 or so years old, how did the light from all those 

stars reach earth? It would take us many, many light years (more than 6,000) to get to certain stars, yet 

we can still see the light they emit. There are several answers that I won’t get into now, but if one wants 

to answer that problem naturally (i.e. without invoking God), he has to invoke a rescuing device.

            Whenever a side thinks thinks he or she has presented irrefutable scientific proof for his 

position, the other side can simply say, “Well, you see, (rescuing device). So there.” And there goes 

that.

            The third problem pertains to theistic evolutionists and not to atheists. Whenever a creationist 

has a theistic evolutionist in the corner with the whole “there is no evidence for the big bang or life-

from-non-life” argument, they can invoke God. “Oh, God did it. So you see, we don’t have to have any 

observational evidence that it happened, because God made it happen.” That has happened to me and it 

drives me nuts. But oh well, they do it.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            If all these things are true, how can I debate theistic evolutionists at all? What I do is move the 

debate from science to the Bible. Theistic evolutionists believe the Bible is the Word of God just like 

creationists do. In this debate, it is important to show them that the Bible is not compatible with 

evolution. There are several problems that I will post about. Leave them with these two options: 1) 

evolution is true, 2) the Bible is true. They won’t like it, but that is the ultimate question. The following 

posts will be about how the Bible does not fit with evolution.

The One and Only Isaac

            Here’s a fourth swing many critics try to make at the Bible. One verse states that Abraham only 

had one son (Genesis 22:2). But if you read Genesis, you’ll know that he had a child by Hagar 

(Ishmael, Genesis 16:15), a child by Sarah (Isaac, Genesis 21:3), and six children by Keturah (Genesis 

25:1-2). Let’s examine this:

            Genesis 22:2 states that God told Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you 

love, and go…” So Abraham only has one son, right? Right?

            What about the other verses? What about Ishmael, (the rest are Keturah’s children) Zimran, 

Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah? There are many, many explanations, and I will go 

through some of them:

            1) God puts a qualifier on “your only son” by saying “whom you love.” This deals with the 

contradiction because God was saying Isaac was the only son that Abraham loved. This does 

away with the problem, but it seems a little too pat (like the third answer in my last post), so I will give 

a couple more explanations.

            2) One explanation I will mention is given by Answers in Genesis here. The Hebrew word for 

“only” is yachiyd, which can mean “special” and “unique.” If understand the article correctly, when 

God said Isaac was Abraham’s “only son”, he was saying Isaac was Abraham’s “special, unique son.” 

Through Isaac came Israel and the world’s savior, Jesus. Isaac, indeed, was unique.

            3) When God said, “your only son,” He was referring to the fulfillment of an earlier promise to 

Abraham in Genesis 15:4, “This man (talking about someone else) shall not be your heir; your very 

own son shall be heir.” Ishmael was also Abraham’s son, yes, but he was not meant to fulfill this 

promise. Isaac was.

            How does this deal with the contradiction? Well, that means that, when God said “your only 

son,” He meant “the only son that fulfilled my promise to you,” not “the only son that you have ever 

had.” Hopefully this makes sense.

            4) The next answer deals with context. Isaac was special (duh). He, like Moses and David, 

were prototypes for the life of Christ. In this episode, Isaac represented Christ’s death on the cross. 

Genesis 22:1-19 was about the story of Isaac's (almost) sacrifice. Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac 

to show his faithfulness to the Lord. He went to do it, but the Lord stopped him. He had demonstrated 

his faithfulness, and that was enough.

            What does this have to do with the contradiction? If this option is correct, it means God wasn’t 

talking about Isaac when He said, “your only son”. He was alluding to Jesus, God’s only son. Jesus 

was going to be sacrificed; Isaac was going to be sacrificed. Isaac was a type of Christ, and Christ was 

God’s “only Son.” This was probably an imperfect explanation, so here is a source that explains it 

much better.

            Number one will do in a conversation. It is basically a quick deflection, a quick answer. If it is 

not satisfactory, number two is best. Three and four are… okay, but unless you can communicate them 

succinctly, the first two are best. Also, Creation Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) is another 

great place for (duh) apologetics and sources.

Genesis 1 vs. 2

            One of the most cited "contradictions" in the Bible is the supposed difference between Genesis 

chapter one and Genesis chapter two. This is repeated by theistic evolutionists (and Old Earth 

Creationists) as evidence against a literal Genesis and non-Christians as evidence against Christianity. 

But enough of that. In this particular post, I will go over one of the few specific "contradictions" in 

Genesis one and two. What is this contradiction?

            Genesis 1:25 states, "And God made the beast of the earth… and cattle… and every thing (else, 

basically, that dwells on dry land)…". Then, later in 1:27, Moses writes, "So God created man in his 

own image." Because Genesis is literal history, how are we to read this? Well, that means land animals 

came before man. Okay, no big deal.

            In Genesis 2:19, Moses writes, "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…". Moses makes it seem like Adam 

had already been created before the land animals.

            This is an alleged contradiction because the two chapters seem like they are giving two different 

accounts. Did animals come before humans, or after?  Non-Christians like it because they can say, 

"See? We can't trust the Bible." Theistic evolutions (and OECs) are fine with it because they can say to 

their Creationist brothers and sisters, "See? There is absolutely no problem if you take the beginning of 

Genesis symbolically. You can just say that Moses wasn't being chronologically literal. He was just 

weaving a beautiful story (and on and on)."

            For this example, you can take two routes:

1) Explain how certain translations nail it by using a certain word.

2) Explain what the verse doesn't say.

            1) Certain translations do away with any and all potential problems by the way they interpret the 

word "formed" (in Genesis 2:19). The Hebrew word for "formed" is yatsar. And, as with any 

language, there are different forms. Some translations use the "perfect" form, and they get "formed." 

These translations translate it using the "pluperfect" form, and they get "had formed." Why does this 

matter? Well, if God "had (already) formed" the animals, than it is perfectly acceptable for Adam to be 

created and mentioned in the verse, too. Because by verse 19 both had been created. Do I know 

Hebrew? No, I got this answer from here. Good ole' Answers in Genesis.

            2) Verse 2:19 never says God "immediately brought them unto Adam" to be named. It just says 

that He brought them to Adam. How does this explain the contradiction? Well, the verse says God 

created the animals (which He did), but time could've elapsed before He brought them to Adam, which 

allows Adam to be created. It is basically a clever way out, though it is true. Just say, "Yes, God did 

create the land animals, but He waited until Adam was created before naming them."

            I think it is pretty obvious that #1 is the most solid explanation to this supposed contradiction, 

but I know that it can be hard to remember foreign words (and strange forms), especially when you 

don't know the language (who can remember yatsar and "pluperfect" form?). #3 will do in a 

pinch, though it isn't as satisfactory.

Judas Meets His End

            How did Judas die? If you look up his guilt-induced suicide (imagine standing before God on 

the judgement throne and saying, “Sorry ‘bout that.” Ouch), you’ll get two supposedly different 

answers.

            Matthew 27:5 writes, “And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he (Judas) 

departed, and he went and hanged himself.” That’s one account.

            After Jesus arose and inspired His disciples to spread the Gospel unto all the nations, Peter 

stands before the early (extremely early) church and recounts to them the story of Judas. In Acts 1:18, 

Peter says of Judas, “Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling 

headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” In this account, Judas falls to his 

death.

            Okay, close the book. Go home. Can’t trust the Bible. That’s a contradiction if there ever was 

one…
            

            Haha, psyche.

            What happened was very simple. Judas hung himself, and after awhile the rope (or something 

else ;) snapped, and his body fell and burst open. Both are correct if the chronology is established. 

These two accounts give different details. One was the during (being hung), the other was the after 

(falling and bursting open). Did Judas die while being hung, or did he die after falling? We do not 

know, but I can assure you that he died.

            But what we do know is that Matthew and Peter (in Acts) do not contradict each other.

My First Victim (a Softball)

  (I dedicate this post to two youngsters named Joshua and Joey. This blog was made possible 

through their financial gifts. I thank you two for your never-ending humor and energy. Keep up the 

good work.)

  Now, when going through the lists of “contradictions”, I had a tough time choosing. It needed 

to  be big. Controversial. Raging. Potentially embarrassing. In the words of those annoying pigeons in 

the sappy animated movie Bolt, “It (needs) to be huge, man, huge.”

  So, naturally, I went with a contradiction that had none of those qualities. Let’s travel to the 

Gospels for a softball, shall we? When Jesus was hung on a cross, they put a sign over Him that 

detailed His (blasphemous) claim. Let’s examine it.

  Matthew stated that the sign they put over Jesus proclaimed “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF 

THE JEWS” (Matthew 27:37).

  But wait, Mark writes “THE KING OF THE JEWS” (Mark 15:26).

Even worse, Luke writes that the sign said “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” (Luke 23:38).

  Naturally, John just has to make it worse by saying “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF

THE JEWS” (John 19:19).

  Why do they contradict each other? Well, the short answer is: they don’t. A contradiction is 

when one person says X and another person says Y (for you math people, in this instance X ≠ Y). Or 

later one person says X and someone else gives a different definition for X. The Gospel writers do 

neither of those things.

  For example, on the Huffington Post website, if you scroll down, there is an article by Belle 

Beth Cooper titled “10 Simple Things You Can Do Today That Will Make You Happier, Backed By 

Science”. Let’s say that you read it. Later, you ask four people (who have also read the article), “What 

was its title?”

  One person says, “Simple Things You Can Do Today That Will Make You Happier”.

  Another person says, “10 Simple Things You Can Do That Will Make You Happier, Backed 

By Scientists”.

  The third person says, “10 Things You Can Do Today That Will Make You Happier, Backed 

By Science.”

  Finally, the fourth says, “Things You Can Do That Will Make You Happier”.

  Did they contradict each other? No, not at all. They just gave either the bare minimum and/or 

selective details to go along with it. But in the end, the message comes across (stated by the fourth 

person).

  The same logic applies to the sign in the Gospels. Mark supplies the bare minimum (THE 

KING OF THE JEWS) in his description, and the other three add to that. But the message doesn’t 

change. No one states “THE PRINCE OF THE JEWS”, or anything like that. If that was the case, that 

would be a true contradiction. A prince and a king are very different. But as it is, we are left with the 

truth:

Jesus (from Nazareth) is the King of the Jews

P.S. The blog was free ;)