How much is too much evolution?

@TruthMuse, 

You have my attention.  You keep saying I'm wrong, so I'm listening and willing to hear you out.  Since you seem to be so assured of what's truth and error (and equally confident that I fall in the latter category), I yield the floor.  Walk me through it step by step starting with verse 1 and explain to me the true meaning of Genesis.

The heavens and the earth, then it goes on to give an account of what He does in the 6 days of creation. Now you may if you want suggest that the opening statement has to do with everything He was about to do, or that there were some things He did before he started the 6 days, don't care neither of those interpretations alters the question I asked you that you have not answered.

You mean your question about animals and common ancestry?  We'll get to that verse soon enough.  But first we need to understand the meaning of the verses that precede it.  And maybe you don't care about the two possible interpretations, but you certainly should after all the grief you keep giving me about only one truth being possible:

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' is either:

(1) A summary statement that means God created everything; OR

(2) It means that first God created 'the heavens and the earth' and then next created 'light' and so on.

*Both can't be true, so which is it?

The possible interpretations, one that says God did it and this is how, but the other God did something before and started the 6 days of creating. Both of these things have at the table a sequence of events where God created life and so on. I said that it wasn't clear when I first answered your question, and it is still unclear. Like other things in scripture, some things are addressed with great specificity, others not, and when they are not clearly spelled out, it isn't wise to create a doctrine on any number of possibilities that may or may not be true.

Are you going to bother answering my question or go on about something I told you was true when I answered your question the first time?

I think I already made it clear that it's important to answer your question in the proper context of the preceding verses.  So first we have to understand the verses before it to understand how it fits in.  

Neither of the two interpretations alters the text I asked you about, so why are you going on about this? If there were events before, or if it was about what would occur, both share the next verses where God creates one thing then another,  one group of life then another. You want to continue dancing around fine; tell me why that would matter one way or another!

Yes, I understand, but taking that approach here is particularly problematic because whether it is (1) a summary statement that God created everything, or (2) a statement that first God created the 'heavens and the earth' greatly affects how Genesis 1.2 and the verses that follow are interpreted.  (Verse 2 is problematic regardless of which possibility we pick, but we haven't got to that verse yet).

There are at least three things that need to be determined in verse 1:

(a) What is meant by 'the heavens'? (the sky?  the abode of God?  both?)

(b) What is meant by 'the earth'? (the physical material/'stuff' of the earth?  the earth as a planet of our solar system?  earth in the sense of land on which life can exist?)

(c) Is verse 1 a summary statement or God's first act of creation?

I'm asking you to be specific, because you have told me that specific meaning matters (i.e., the truth as opposed to opinion), especially given your comments about science and religion, and how in the end you say science will be in agreement with what Genesis 1 says.  But if it's not clear what Genesis says, then how can we know if it agrees with science?  If the 'heavens and earth' (whatever those terms mean) are not a summation but God's first creative act, then that's a significant point of understanding.  They can't both be true, and if the latter one's the correct understanding---and if it's also a scientifically factual/accurate statement of material origins like you say it is---then that will greatly affect the type of scientific confirmation we should expect.

Either interpretation causes problems when we get to verse 2, but for what's it's worth I would suggest the summary statement of 'heavens and earth' meaning 'everything' makes more sense.  This is because if it's a first creative act, then it's difficult to explain the creation of 'sky/heavens' on day 2 and 'earth/land' on day 3, if those have already been created.  It also doesn't account for the appearance of 'waters' in verse 2 without any statement of their creation (although that's a problem with either interpretation).

As far as the meaning of 'heaven' and 'earth' that is very difficult to know and all the more so since the meaning of 'earth' seems to have at least 2 different meanings (possibly 3) depending on whether we're talking about 'earth' in verse 1, or 'earth' in verse 2, or 'earth' on day 3.  But if the summation interpretation is correct, then that also sidesteps the problem a little bit, because taken together as a phrase 'the heavens and the earth'--together suggests totality ('everything') by a figure of speech known as a merism (that cites opposite ends or extremes to represent totality of everything in between; like 'A to Z', or "Alpha and Omega").  Thus, 'earth' and 'heavens' taken together and constituting a merism that stands for totality (i.e., 'everything')--if that's true, then it's not necessary to know the individual sense of 'earth' and 'heavens' by itself.

*These are some of the reasons that I think favor the summation interpretation of verse 1, but if you think that's wrong I'm open to hearing why.  Either way, though, I do think it's important to try to determine which interpretation is most likely correct, given the importance of how it effects the rest of our understanding of Genesis.

For what it's worth, and I think it isn't very meaningful, is my opinion on what it means. I have always read it as the heavens and earth were created, much like we would initialize a null value to now be able to hold data. The null value was about to hold the universe and be populated with everything in it. The earth was what in the beginning?

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters,

So I hear you saying (or at least seem to be suggesting) verse 2 might give us clues on the proper way to view verse 1?  Alright, let's go with that.  What is verse 2 referring to then?

Key words:

tohu ('formless', 'without form')

bohu ('void', 'empty', 'desolate')

hosek ('darkness')

tehom ('the deep', 'great deep', 'abyss'; primordial waters of creation)

As I said, I answered your question, stop dancing around and answer mine! 

I'm not claiming there were no 'points of contact' between the Jews and Egypt under the pharoahs! I remember one historian pointing out that while nothing of an archaeological kind has ever supported the captivity of the Jews in Egypt, it's believed that an indigenous population of some two million Jews populated that region around the south-eastern Mediterranean, particularly around Alexandria.

All manner of Egytion customs and idioms may well have passed between the two cultures by that means. Of course it's well accepted that the Jews of Judea were taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And I've heard scholars suggest that the story of the Flood and the arc were assimilated into Judaic religious lore from there, because the Babylonians had a very similar belief in an arc that had saved many from an ancient flood.

Few stories are truly original!

Very good point, a few stories are original, if we knew which were there would not be an argument on the validity of the history. 

And there's also evidence that these various groups of non-Egyptians were used as slaves in numerous building projects and the storehouses of Pithom and Raamses directly cited in Exodus have been discovered by archaeologists.  As I said there is much debate over the details and chronology, but wholesale denial of the entire book of Exodus and any enslavement in Egypt that requires us to believe it's all a wholesale fiction made up out of nothing strains credulity.

And as I've said now for the THIRD time, in order to understand that later verse we first need to understand the verses that precede it!  Methodically working through something step-by-step is not dancing around, it's just good sense.  Are you that impatient that you can't wait until we actually get to that verse?

You're the one who keeps getting on my case saying that pretty much everything I say about Genesis 1 is wrong and just my opinion and counter to the actual truth and distorting the truth and changing it into something else, and I'm a little wearied by it.  So like I said I give up and yield the floor to you.  If everything I say about Genesis 1 is wrong, then I want to hear from you what the *real* truth is.  If I'm so wrong then I want to know step-by-step, verse by verse what the true meaning of Genesis actually is. 

So far you've told me that the 'true' meaning of verse 1 is unclear, but seem to suggest that verse 2 might shed some light on the situation, so I'm willing to move on to verse 2, which is fine with me because not only does it get us closer to your animal-common ancestry question, but also how we interpret verse 2 (and the verses after it) affects the answer to your animal-common ancestor question.

Okay, never mind. I give up!

Lol, you can't give up because I already gave up and yielded to you.  I fully intend to answer your question, but like I said how we understand the preceding verses affects the answer to your question.  If Genesis 1 is meant to convey scientifically accurate information, then yes, that creates a conflict and puts Genesis and science at odds when it comes to the question of universal common ancestry.  I'm just waiting for you to demonstrate that that's actually true and that's truly how we're supposed to understand Genesis.

For example, if Genesis 1:2 is meant to convey scientifically accurate information about the state of the earth, then what does it mean that the earth was without form and void/empty and that there was darkness over the face of the deep/abyss....over the waters?  If that's a statement of reality before there was life or dry land, then what would that look like to us if we were there to observe it?  What is meant by 'the deep/abyss' and the waters, etc. in that verse?

You redefined your question to me several times now, I'm tired of waiting. It is quite a simple question I'm not asking you to defend the whole Genesis as you see it, just one point. Answer don't answer, I'm not going to bug you about it anymore.

OK, now you've lost me, because I just answered your question in the last post!  If Genesis is meant to be understood as conveying scientifically factual information then Genesis and science are at odds when it comes to the question of universal common ancestry (i.e., they can't both be correct).  I've answered your question twice now.  Was my answer unclear?  Do I really need to spell it out? If the verses in Genesis 1 that tell of God creating birds, and sea creatures, and land creatures and plants on different days are meant to convey scientifically factual information about the origin and history of life on this planet including the order in which said types of life appear, then what Genesis says and what modern science says about universal common ancestry (i.e., the former saying there is no universal common ancestry and the latter saying there is) are at odds with each other (i.e., they both can't be right).

Are you now finally going to demonstrate that that indeed is the way we're supposed to understand Genesis (i.e., as conveying scientifically accurate information) AND answer my questions about verse 2?