Inside the evolutionary camp there is an evolutionary view called macro-evolution. If you want a visualization just think of the scale popularized in the 1970's which you probably saw in elementary school, you know the one of the fish creeping onto land and becoming a bird then a beast an ape and finally a man. Now, this view can be summed up with the definition found on the website, biology online:
Macro-evolution: Definition : noun, plural: macro-evolutions: Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
I have never held to the macro-evolution model, though I know many who do. In fact, if you hold to a type of evolutionary view that calls for any type of animal specie evolving from a lower animal specie, then you must by definition hold to the macro-evolutionary model. I am not surprised by those outside of bible teaching churches and bible believing Christian circles (I will use those definitions to describe 'Christian' in the rest of the article) who would grasp the macro-evolutionary model as a cornerstone of their belief; however, I am quite surprised when I come across a Christian that holds to this view. So, without getting into what many see as inconsistencies in the belief that some hold in the Christian church which recognizes either an 'old earth' or a 'young earth' view, I want to concentrate on one verse in the New Testament. The debate between old earth and new earth theories of creation are for a different time: neither view would conflict with this discussion since they both hold to the microevolution model of human origins and neither hold to the macro-evolutionary model. These are in contrast to the model that is in dispute here, namely Theistic Evolution which includes the belief in macro-evolution as a means of human origin.
You see, I believe that in this one verse that we are going to look at there is enough proof through the literal rendering of the verse to shut the door to any notion of a macro-evolutionary model for biological evolution for those who hold to Biblical creation. It will be a short study and hopefully by the time we are through, you will see that the belief of a Biblical creation cannot be held together with a macro-evolutionary model of hominid (human kind) origins.
So, let's jump into the study. Here is the verse:
“All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” 1 Corinthians 15:39 NASB
That's it. One verse, and within that verse we will be concentrating mainly on three words: 'not', and then, 'one' and 'another', which are actually one word translated two ways.
Notice in the first part of the verse it says, “All flesh is not the same flesh,”. Now this may seem obvious upon casual reading but notice that it qualifies the statement by using the conjunction 'but', saying in the next part of the verse, “but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beast...birds...fish.” This conjunction that is translated 'but' is literally 'alla' in the Greek which means, 'but', 'nevertheless', 'notwithstanding', 'nay', etc. So, what is being said here is that there is without question, different kinds of flesh. This brings us to the first term we need to dig into, “is not”. In the Greek language there is a term called the 'absolute negative'; the word used here for 'not' is the Greek primary word, ou (pronounced oo) when translated becomes 'is not ever, never, absolutely not'. This can be contrasted to a similar passage in 1 Corinthians 14:39 where Paul has just finished giving instructions on the use of certain spiritual gifts in the assembly and he says, “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.” NASB italics inserted. The word used here for 'not' is the Greek word 'mē' which is referred to as a qualified negation- no, lest, etc. The reason this qualified negation was used here was due to the fact that there were certain rules that Paul had just pointed out that are to be followed in the assembly regarding the use of tongues, so instead of the absolute, “never, ever forbid to speak in tongues”, the qualified is used, “do not forbid to speak in tongues lest...” letting it be known to the Greek reader that there may be times that tongues would be forbidden. In the case of 15:39; however, the opposite is true, “all flesh is not and never has been or will be the same flesh,”; the absolute negative makes this certain. Now we move on to the words 'one' and 'another'. These are actually the same word in the Greek, 'allos' which means 'another' or 'different'. So, by implication, not only is the verse saying that there is absolutely, without question 'different kinds' of flesh, there is also a different kind of flesh between species and none are or ever have shared the others 'kind'.
So, what does this all mean? What it means is that man doesn't have and never has had the same flesh as the beast, the bird or the fish! Isn't it amazing that some time around 50-60 A.D. the evolutionary scale of fish-bird-beast-man was given a fatal blow in one verse? Especially amazing given the fact that Darwin's diagram of the evolutionary tree was not invented until the 1800's! Now, if there is a God (and I believe there is) that would be just the type of answer He would give: one verse, include the evolutionary scale and put it to death by the use of a couple of words. Amazing.
In conclusion I want to emphasize again that I am not arguing with those who are 'outside' of Christianity, only those who hold to the macro-evolutionary model of Theistic Evolution and profess to be Christian. And even then, I don't believe the argument is with me, it appears, at the very least, to be with this one verse tucked away in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians.
Randy
No comments:
Post a Comment