Featured post

Purpose and navigation

Creation and evolution don’t have to be in conflict.  This site explores the doctrine and science of Genesis 1 and God’s creative work.  Why?  Because as a community we need to accommodate a range of opinions while being true to God’s Word so we don’t cause others to stumble.  Following is an explanation of evolutionary creation, or theistic evolution or God directed evolution (whatever label you wish to use).

Navigation – In addition to tags, the pages capture the posts relevant to various subjects with an index/links to relevant posts in a semi-logical order.

Following is a bit of an intro/background/purpose on how the initial author of this page arrived at evolutionary creation, having been an ardent creationist all his life.



My Encounter with the Firmament – TheTorah.com

A fascinating Jewish perspective, reviewing the history of Jewish interpretation of the firmament.  From the article:

The Torah describes God’s fashioning the firmament (רקיע) on the second day of creation. This piece of the universe, however, doesn’t actually exist—a problem obfuscated in my yeshiva education…Every pre-Copernican commentator in Judaism who wrote about the rakia knew exactly what it was.[8] The Talmud, for instance, records varying opinions about the thickness of what is clearly a solid firmament; from the seven layer firmaments of Resh Lakish (b. Chagigah 12b), to the two firmaments of R Judah (ibid.), from the finger-width firmament of Rav Joshua ben R Nehemia (Gen. Rab. 4:5), to the “50 year journey” firmament of Rav Judah (j. Berachot 2c).

Source: My Encounter with the Firmament – TheTorah.com

Cain & Abel

The story of Cain and Abel plays an important role in the foundation of Old Testament theology. While the narrative itself is simple, the themes are deep, and the message deceptively sophisticated.

Just as their parents are the archetypal first human beings and sinners, the brothers represent an archetypal sibling rivalry fuelled by humanity’s predilection for conflict. Their story is traditionally examined from the standpoint of ‘what happened to Abel, and why?’, but a greater lesson emerges when we take the standpoint of ‘what happened afterwards?’ Continue reading

Disfellowshipping heretics?

1 Timothy 6:5 and Titus 3:10 are favourites with those who insist on their reading of the bible as the only possible one.  Phrases advocating withdrawal and rejecting heretics play well.  On closer examination these passages do not support the conservative’s case, but rather illustrate a tendancy to do inadequate due diligence on the verses they use against others. Continue reading

Robert Roberts thought the flood was local

Bro Roberts considered the flood to be local (but to have killed all humans bar Noah and family). His comments are reproduced below:

“Considering the comparatively limited extent of the human family at the time, and that it was confined to one small district of the globe, it would seem reasonable to conclude from the principle already looked at-the divine sparingness of means-that the flood was co-extensive only with the Adamically-inhabited portion of the globe.

There are facts that compel such a conclusion: and as all facts are of God, they must be in agreement. The animals of New Zealand are different from those of Australia. The animals of Australia, again, are different from those of Asia and Europe. These again differ entirely from those of the American continent: All differ from one another: and the fossil remains on all the continents show that this difference has always prevailed. Now if the flood were universal in the absolute sense, it is manifest that these facts could not be explained, for if the animals all over the earth were drowned, and the devastated countries were after-wards replenished from a Noachic centre, the animals of all countries would now show some similarity, instead of consisting of totally different species. The animals taken into the ark in that case would be the animals of the humanly populated district. Only a comparatively small district in relation to the face of the world at large.”

Roberts, R. “The Visible Hand of God”, The Christadelphian (18.205.308), 1881

Continue reading

A Local flood position by Christadelphians

Bro Alan Hayward believed in old earth creation (but not theistic evolution) and had this to say about the Flood in his book “God’s Truth”:

“Of all the miracles recorded in the Bible, the biggest by far is the Flood. It is also the one that has provoked the greatest amount of disbelief.
In this particular case the objections are not unreasonable. They deserve careful consideration. If the Biblical Flood ever took place, it ought to have left some traces. Where are they? Continue reading

Noah's ark monreale mosaic

Noah’s Flood, global or local?

The following is an extract from LOTE (“Living on the Edge” by Bro J Burke) as the question of the flood has come up on this page.

Was the Genesis flood local or global?

There are three possible interpretations of the Genesis flood. It could have been anthropologically global (all humans everywhere in the earth were affected), and geographically global (the entire earth was covered with water). Alternatively, it could have been anthropologically global (all humans on the earth affected), but geographically local (only a local area of the earth covered with water because all the humans were localized in that area). Continue reading

The history of the BASF

Is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation (as we prefer) able to be reconciled to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) which is the most commonly used statement of faith for Christadelphians?

Christadelphians historically recognise the statement of faith is a product of the time, human rather than inspired and should not be read at a word for word level (eg see here).  However, in response to Christadelphians accepting the reality of evolution, some have promoted new and narrow ways of reading the statement of faith to try and exclude evolutionary creation.  (Many of the same ecclesias a long time ago added specific additions to their Doctrines to Be Rejected to exclude evolution – thereby demonstrating that the BASF etc IS NOT of itself sufficient to exclude “theistic evolution” as they call it). Continue reading