I wonder why your Bible seems to offer a 67th book...the gospel of "Natural Science" that dictates when things were created and gets to re-imagine what happened in creation contrary to the explicit statements of other books of the canon.
Explicit statements within the 66 books of our Bible point to God's creation as a real source of truth.
By the way, there is NO SUCH THING as purely theological/biblical exegesis of Genesis that concludes any other meaning for "yom" in Genesis 1 than what I have previously stated...unless they have already presupposed science to be absolute and interpretive concerning this, and Scripture therefore to demand a re-imagined re-interpretation.
Revelation 16 uses the word phiale
to describe seven bowls or vials that are filled with God's wrath and poured out on the earth. Now, can we figure out if God's wrath will literally be poured into bowls by studying the word phiale
? Will we find out if the word is literal or figurative? No. In general, there is not one set of words that are literal and another set that are figurative. Words that literally mean one thing can also be used figuratively or symbolically. It's precisely because the word has a literal, physical meaning that it is useful when speaking symbolically!
I think Revelation 16 uses the word phiale
to mean a bowl or vial, but I think the overall framework of seven bowls is a literary framework to describe something beyond the physical in physical terms. I don't believe God's wrath is really a liquid that can be poured into and out of literal bowls! Similarly, I think Genesis 1 uses the word yom
to mean a solar day or (in verse 5) the light part of a solar day. But, I think the overall framework of seven days is a literary framework that again describes something beyond the physical in physical terms. (As to why those physical terms are used, I already gave my view earlier in this thread
The language you are using of "transitional" already assumes that the critters under pervue are links in the evolutionary chain between other critters, rather than simply creatures who happen to have some characteristics in common with others.
Exactly. The prediction based on evolution, made long before transitional whale fossils were uncovered, is that whales descend from land mammals. The transitionals and DNA evidence (and even the discovery of DNA!) came much later.
But didn't God speak to commonness of descent along certain lines without crossing over (concerning certain creatures aquatic, aviary, terrestrial, etc.) in Gen. 1?
If you want to read that meaning into those groups, then whales would share descent with other sea creatures, not with land mammals. How well does that idea fit the evidence?
Further, what defines the evolutionary patterns of descent -- genetics? anatomy? or whatever?
What really makes the evidence persuasive is corroboration from multiple areas of study. If whales were genetically most similar to sharks, while fossils showed intermediary species between crocodiles and whales, while sometimes modern whales were found with tiny feathered wings, then the idea of common descent would be in serious trouble.
Instead, evidence from various fields confirms and clarifies the same conclusion. Whale atavisms (recurrence of an ancestral trait, like hind limbs) point back to land mammals. Whale vestigial traits (such as those atrophied muscles to move external ears that no longer exist) point back to land mammals. Fossil evidence of intermediary whale species point back to land mammals. Whole-genome sequencing shows that whales are most similar to land mammals, such as hippos and camels.
Evolution requires the pattern that we find. It requires the pattern to be the same, whether we're looking at DNA or fossils. The idea that whales were created without ancestors gives us no reason to expect such a pattern, and offers no explanation for it once it's found.