Hyper evolution in the bible

Can we get something straight here? The Bible doesn't speak of Nebuchadnezzar becoming a beast, it speaks of him becoming like a beast.

quote:

---

The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws. (Daniel 4:33)

---

According to the story, he went crazy and acted like an animal. He did not "evolve", hyper or otherwise.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Similes are similes. That is not a matter of opinion.Daniel said that Nebuchadnezzar acted like a beast, he did not become one. The only changes were his hair and nails growing longer and it does not say that that happened rapidly. In "the same hour" the change began. It doesn't say anything about how long it took.Your inability to read the Bible does not strengthen your case.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

THE WORD "LIKE" SAYS IT WAS A SIMILE.If you can't read plain English, you're just wasting my time.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

In case there are any lurkers who might be taken in by this lunacy, I'll try one last time:In the English language, a comparison using the word "like" is a simile. By definition. Period.You can not use the word "like" in a comparison without it being a simile. Period.It is a figure of speech, by definition. Period.It is not to be taken literally. Period.If it was not intended as a figure of speech, the word "like" would not be there. The translators obviously intended it as a figure of speech, or they would not have used the word "like". If the simple-minded don't want it to be a figure of speech, they need to argue with the translators, not with the English language.As it applies to the example, Nebuchadnezzar's hair was like eagles' feathers - it did not become eagles' feathers. His nails were like claws - they did not become claws. He ate grass like oxen - he did not become an ox.There was no evolution involved. Period.This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-09 09:27 AM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Nope. Read it again:

quote:

---

The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws. (Daniel 4:33)

---

It doesn't say his feathers were like eagles' feathers. It says his hair was like eagles feathers. It was still hair.No evolution.You're twisting the Bible. Shame on you.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I know I shouldn't waste my time with somebody who can't read English, but I can't get past this: You've brought that up several times, but nowhere does Genesis say anything about the garden growing "in a few days".

quote:

---

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

There is no mention at all of a time frame.Okay. I've gotten that off my chest.Babylon.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. We know that plants were created on the third day. The garden could have been planted at any time after that, just like many other gardens have been planted at other times.And by the way: No. Land animals were created on the sixth day, the same day that man was created:

quote:

---

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.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

---

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Still no.It says that god planted the garden and put the man into it:

quote:

---

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

Nowhere does it say that that happened on the sixth day. It could have been days, months or years later.Now, the plants outside the garden were created, not "planted". So the animals outside the garden could forage just as normal animals do on normal plants. The man could equally have been sustained by normal plants outside the garden for days, months or years.Or, after he was in the garden, he could very well have been sustained by the created plants from outside the garden until the garden was ready to eat.Also, it doesn't say that God planted seeds. He might very well have transplanted mature plants from outside the garden.So there is absolutely no requirement for rapid growth in the garden.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

If you take that tack, you're going to run into conflicts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, the animals came first, and then men and women. Think again. In Genesis 1, first the plants were created, then the animals were created, then man was created, then the garden was planted. There had to be plants and animals "outside" the garden because there was no garden at first. Also, it specifically says that God put the man in the garden, not that He created the man in the garden. The garden was clearly a subset of the whole creation. The garden was "in" Eden. Remember? Think again:

quote:

---

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

You're starting to waste my time again. How about actually reading the Bible before you make that kind of comment? You don't have to go looking for obscure "hints". Just read the Bible. First, God created plants, then He created animals, then He created man, then He planted the garden, then He put man into the garden.In fact, there is not so much as a hint that there were not any plants or animals outside the garden. After all, when God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, do you think they went out into a completely barren and uninhabited world? Of course not. Ahem... we are talking about God here. Remember? If He could create them in the first place, He could "plant" them any way He chose, with a reasonable chance of success. And no need for rapid growth. If we're going with the 24-hour days here (and more on that later), then God only rested for one day. Where does it say that the man was put in the garden before that? It could have been days or months or years later. No need for rapid growth. Are you saying that you have physical evidence of the "six 24-hour days" creation? Because there are other threads that would gladly have you present that evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

So you found one commentator who twists the Bible the way you want it. The plain meaning is still that the garden was planted after man was created:

quote:

---

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

The rest of your post is so nonsensical that I can't even follow it.Babylon.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

But Genesis 1 has the order flat-out wrong. Light before plants? Plants before the sun? A lesson in comprehension from the guy who can't recognize a simile when he sees one?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I've seen dandelions grow in less than three days. They make a nutritious salad, I'm told.Does that mean my lawn is "merged" with the spiritual?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

How about them?I see no reason why all life on earth couldn't have subsisted on dandelions for 3 measly days. Have you ever seen my lawn? I could feed Africa for a year (if we could manage the transportation difficulties). I'm not trying to toss out the Bible. I'm just reading it. Maybe you should try that.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I'm saying it can. And from my lawn alone, no less.Let's do the experiment: You round up the transport planes. I'll start on the salads.Your scenario is far loonier than mine. (By the way, does it even occur to you that nobody is taking you seriously?)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

On the contrary, my scenario is testable.In fact, we're testing it right now. I have enough salads made for the Cameroons. Where are them planes? The salads are starting to wilt.