Genesis 1:1-2. Some believe a possible time gap occurred between these two verses. It shows that the universe had been created but never explicitly
implies how long it existed before the development of creation began. In other words, it reveals a difference between the original creation and its
eventual development.
Genesis 1:11-12. The Bible shows God saying 'Let there be…' in other verses but then switches the phrase to 'Let the earth bring forth plants'
and 'Then the earth brought forth plants.' Were plants developed from the earth through adaptation with the gentle care and intervention of God?
Genesis 1:24-25. Again, instead of a 'Let there be…' God tells the land (from the vegetation he created?) to bring forth animals but then also
shows us Him creating them. Theistic evolution? Did God design new creations from His other creations through genetic evolution while being fully
involved in the process?
Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7. Wait a minute. God said He created man in His own image and that He also created him from the dust out of the ground.
Again, was He using His own creation to make other creations?
Genesis 2:21-23. God made Eve out of Adam. Why not form her out of the ground as well? Did God use cellular mitosis and more 'new creation from
previous creation?' Why cause a deep sleep to come over Adam and take part of him to make another? We know living cells divide as a fact of science.
Did God use His creation of cellular mitosis to create Eve?
Genesis 2:14. The snake is cursed to slither on the ground. According to evolution, the snake is evolved from animals that once had limbs and modern
snakes show signs of this form of degeneration. See:
This section of talks about the evolutionary
degeneration of snakes. Degeneration is also mentioned in other parts of the Bible (more on this in a moment). Was the curse for the serpent
gradual like the curse for humans and nature?
Genesis 2:18. Wait a minute. How could thorns and thistles (or any new species) come into being if creation was absolutely complete? Did God again use
nature to create nature? Did he encode it to be a perpetuating system with His direct guidance? Does He still actively participate in the birth of new
species? He again used the terminology for the land to bring forth thorns and thistles and not 'Let there be thorns and thistles' which would have
implied an immediate creation. Gradual vs. Immediate and 'Let there be' vs. "Land bring forth.'
Genesis 2:19. So here we have another reference to the concept of degeneration. They did not die immediately. Would the curse come in the gradual form
of genetic mutations like the serpent?
Genesis 5 and Genesis 11:10-32. The human lifespan began decreasing over time. More degeneration. It has been shown that beneficial regressive genes
are often discarded in favor of inferior dominate genes. Is this genetic order part of the curse?
Genesis 10:25. Is this a reference to the separation of the continents known in secular science as Pangaea? How could this be so? Pangaea was supposed
to occur almost 250,000 million years before the existence of man. Furthermore, Peleg wasn't even alive when Genesis was penned. How did the author
of Genesis know about the continental division if it didn't even occur in his time and when he wasn't a contemporary of the witness? See:
Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics.
So, what’s this all about? Was the Bible actually referring to an evolutionary process before the theory was a twinkling in the eye of Darwin? Since
he had once planned to be a clergyman, did his previous study of the Scriptures inspire deeper investigation after his conversion to theism?
Did God actually place the ability in our genetic coding while taking an active role in this process? He did tell all species to be fruitful and
multiply. Perhaps only now can we truly understand the depth of this instruction. Or what about the "according to it's own kind" command? Did God
use creation to form His newer creation for it to later all reproduce to its own kind?
Is this just another example of modern science confirming what the Bible already taught? Has scientific evidence opened our eyes and corrected our
previous incorrect interpretation? This has happened once before due to faulty human understanding of the Bible.
We know the medieval church once considered it heresy to claim the earth was spherical because they believed the Bible taught a flat earth. But did
it? I don't think so. Take Isaiah 41:9 into consideration. It was incorrectly translated as "corners" for centuries even though the original Hebrew
uses a completely different term that explicitly differs between definitions. This verse in Isaiah (among others) uses the word
Qatsah (extremities) while references to literal corners
(
Zaviyth) was not used.
In the Bible, all lands were mentioned by their relevant location from Israel (The kings of the north and south and east and west for one example).
Internal evidence shows this is what Isaiah was referring to by his mention of Earth's extremities. They also didn't take into consideration the
references to the earth being a
circle/circuit/compass of
NE, NW, SE, and SW since ancient Hebrew had no word for sphere.
[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]
). 
