Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution (and Evidence for Christianity) Quotes: Unclassified quotes: Jan-Feb 2011

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [CED blog]

The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in Jan-Feb 2011. The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

Although these are called "Creation/Evolution Quotes" they always have been, and increasingly are mainly, also evidence for Christianity quotes. That is, if Christianity is true, then Creation is true and Evolution, i.e.:"the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis), is false!

[Index: Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

"[Gn 3:15] There is good New Testament authority for seeing here the protevangelium, the first glimmer of 
the gospel. Remarkably, it makes its debut as a sentence passed on the enemy (cf. Col. 2:15), not a direct 
promise to man, for redemption is about God's rule as much as about man's need (cf. Ezk. 36:22, 'not ...for 
your sake...') . The prospect of struggle, suffering and human triumph is clear enough, but only the New 
Testament will unmask the figure of Satan behind the serpent (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9; 20:2), and show how 
significant was the passing over of Adam for the woman and her seed (cf. Mt. 1:23; Gal. 4:4; ?1 Tim. 
2:15). The latter, like the seed of Abraham, is both collective (cf. Rom. 16:20) and, in the crucial struggle, 
individual (cf. Gal. 3:16), since Jesus as the last Adam summed up mankind in Himself. RSV'S personal 
pronoun he, allowed but not required by the Hebrew, has a pre-Christian precedent in the LXX here." 
(Kidner, D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp.70-71. Emphasis 

"A modern objection to such an interpretation goes somewhat as follows. The early Christian fathers, it is 
said, applied this verse to Christ and even labelled it the `Protevangelium,' or the first preaching of the 
Gospel. We know, however, as a result of scientific study that this is not the sense of the passage. Actually 
there is no Messianic prophecy here, and so, of course, there is no reference at all to Satan. Possibly, 
however, the writer, whoever he was (modern negative criticism seems to be assured that he was not 
Moses) had some kind of an inkling that the passage did after all have something to do with man's 
redemption. Of course, this writer did not see Christ here and he did not see Satan, but he may have sensed 
that there was more here than meets the eye. In writing down this verse he probably was using an old 
tradition which he himself did not fully understand. Not all modern critics would agree with such a statement 
of the case, but there is an almost universal consensus that this is not a Messianic prophecy. Our answer to 
this position will, we hope, become clearer, as we proceed. At present it may indeed niqueness of this verse. In all the literature of antiquity there is nothing which even remotely resembles it; 
it stands completely alone." (Young, E.J., "Genesis 3: A Devotional & Expository Study," The Banner of 
Truth Trust: London, 1966, p.105). 

"The Messiah in the Pentateuch There are six direct messianic predictions in the Pentateuch: two in the 
pre-patriarchal times (Ge 1-11), two major ones in the patriarchal era (Ge 12-50), and two dominating ones in 
the Mosaic epoch (Ex-Dt). All six are interconnected and relate to the promise-plan of God that is the main 
backbone of the narrative and theology of the OT. The first two prophecies in these five books of the law 
declared that the coming man of promise would be from the `offspring' of a woman (Ge 3:15), but he would 
also later on be none less than God come to dwell among the families of Shem (9:27)." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 
"The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1995, p.36. Emphasis original).

"The second set of promises announced that there would be two marvelous results that would accompany 
the coming of this man of promise. By means of Abraham's offspring, blessing would be mediated to all the 
families of the earth (Ge 12:3). However, as the plan gathered more specificity and was attached particularly 
to one of Jacob's sons, namely Judah, it became clear that this coming one would be given not only the rule 
and authority over all the nation of Israel, but also authority over the nations (49:10)." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 
"The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1995, p.36).

"During the Mosaic era of revelation; two events stood out with regard to this emerging and accumulating 
doctrine of the coming man of promise. In the prophecies of a Gentile named Balaam, this same coming man 
(in the seed or offspring of Eve, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah) would act as a victorious king as 
he crushed his enemies (Nu 24:17). In addition to his function of ruling as a king, Moses declared he would 
be a prophet as well (Dt 18:18). Thus, even when sketched in its boldest and simplest strokes, the 
Pentateuch set forth in rudimentary forms lines of thought that were anchored seminally in truth that would 
be enlarged in later revelation. Already, this person would be known by his titles of `Seed,' `Shiloh,' 
`Scepter,' `Star,' `King,' and `Prophet.'" (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., "The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1995, pp.36-37).

"However, we must be careful not to take any one of these prophecies or titles in abstraction by itself, for 
they can only be appreciated in their biblical context as they belong to the ongoing announcements and 
fulfillments of the promise theme. This coming person cannot be separated from the contents of the 
covenant God repeatedly affirmed with the patriarchs and Moses. Intertwined in this one plan of God were 
provisions for a name, a blessing, a land, a gospel, a people, a divine dwelling in the midst of the people, and 
an affirmation that God would be their personal deity. It is best that we follow the story of this promise-plan 
through these six high watermarks for the Messiah in the Torah." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., "The Messiah in the Old 
Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1995, p.37).

"THE EDENIC PREDICTION (GENESIS 3:15). Genesis 3:15 has commonly been called the protoevangelium 
(the `first gospel') because it was the original proclamation of the promise of God's plan for the whole world. 
While it is true that it is found in a sentence that denounced the tempter of Eve in the Garden of Eden, yet it 
gave our first parents a glimpse, even if only an obscure one, of the person and mission of the one who was 
going to be the central figure in the unfolding drama of the redemption of the world. The `seed/offspring' 
mentioned in this verse became the root from (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., "The Messiah in the Old Testament," 
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1995, pp.36-37).
, 1995, pp.36-37).

"Augustine's Analysis Among all the early leaders of the Christian church, no one penned a more 
extensive analysis of the creation days than Augustine (AD 354-430). In The City of God, Augustine 
wrote, 'As for these "days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think-let alone explain in words-what they 
mean." [Augustine, The City of God, XI.6]. In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, he added, `But at least 
we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar.' 
[Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, V.2]. Elsewhere in that book he made this comment: `Seven 
days by our reckoning after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such 
weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its 
setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way 
being really similar to them.'  [The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV.27] Augustine took the evenings and 
mornings of the Genesis creation days in a figurative sense. ... In Confessions Augustine notes that for 
the seventh day Genesis makes no mention of an evening and a morning From this omission he deduced 
God sanctified the seventh day, making it an epoch extending onward into eternity. [Augustine, The 
Confessions, XIII.51]" (Ross, H.N., "Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the 
Creation-Date Controversy," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1994, pp.19-20). Emphasis original).

"[2Pet 3:6] By these waters also the world ... was deluged and destroyed Peter points out the fallacy of 
the scoffers' argument. There has been a divine intervention since the time of creation, namely, the flood. 
The term "world" may refer to the earth or, more probably, to the world of people (cf. Jn 3:16. All the people 
except Noah and his family were overcome by the flood and perished. This does not necessarily mean that 
the flood was universal. It may simply have extended to all the inhabited areas of earth (see note on Ge 6:1 
7)." (Barker, K., et al., eds., "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, p.1903).

"[2Pet 3:4] The scoffers supported their scepticism that God would break decisively into history at the return 
of Christ, by emphasizing the immutability of the world. Had they been alive today, they would have talked 
about the chain of cause and effect in a closed universe governed by natural laws, where miracles, almost by 
definition, cannot happen. `The laws of nature', one can almost hear them saying, `disprove your deus ex 
machina doctrine of divine intervention to wind up the course of history.' Their mistake was to forget that 
the laws of nature are God's laws; their predictability springs from His faithfulness." (Green, E.M.B., "The 
Second Epistle General of Peter," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1968, Reprinted, 1983, pp.128-129).

"[2Pet 3:5] Peter takes their last argument first. Their premise (that this is a stable, unchanging world) is 
false; hence their conclusion (that it will remain so, and there will be no parousia) is false also. They wilfully 
neglected the flood, when God did intervene in judgment. The lesson taught by the flood was that this is 
a moral universe, that sin will not for ever go unpunished; and Jesus Himself used the flood to point this 
moral (Mt. 24:37-39). But these men chose to neglect it. They were determined to lose sight of the fact that 
there were heavens in existence long ago, and an earth which was created by the divine fiat out of water, 
and sustained by water. Such seems to be the meaning; but it is a difficult verse. Peter refers, of course, to 
the watery chaos (Gn. 1:2-6) out of which the world was formed at God's repeated word, `Let there be .' It was 
from water that the earth emerged; it was by water (rain, etc.) that life on earth was sustained; and yet this 
same water engulfed it, when God's word of judgment went forth at the flood. ... The emphasis in this verse 
on God's fiat in creation is important to Peter in arguing against the false teachers who apparently held the 
self-sufficiency and immutability of the natural order. On the contrary, he insists, the coursese of history is 
governed by the God who is both Creator and Judge of His worlorld." (Green, E.M.B., "The Second Epistle 
General of Peter," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1968, Reprinted, 1983, pp.129-130. Emphasis original).

"[2Pet 3:4] The false teachers ask, `Where is this `coming' he promised?' Mocking the faith of Christians, 
they support their own position by claiming, `Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since 
the beginning of creation.' Who are the persons Peter calls `our fathers'? ... `Fathers' are much more likely to 
be OT fathers as in John 6:31, Acts 3:13, Romans 9:5, and Hebrews 1:1. This is the normal NT usage ... The 
argument of the false teachers is essentially a naturalistic one-a kind of uniformitarianism that rules out any 
divine intervention in history." (Blum, E.A., "2 Peter," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible 
Commentary: Volume 12 - Hebrews through Revelation," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1981, pp.284-285).

"[2Pet 3:5-6] But they `deliberately [thelontas, `willingly'] forget' the great Flood, when God intervened in 
history by destroying the antediluvian world. What they forget is not only the Flood but also God's prior 
activity by his word-the existence of the heavens and the watery formation of the earth (Gen 1:2-10). It 
seems unlikely that Peter is seeking to affirm that water was the basic material of creation .... He does not use 
the verb ktizo ('create') but says that `long ago by God's word the heavens existed [esan] and the earth 
was formed [synestosa] out of water and with water.' In Genesis the sky (firmament) separates the waters 
from the waters by the word of God and the land appears out of the water by the same word. ... Probably 
both water and the word are to be understood as the agents for destroying the former world (v.6), as the 
word and fire will be the destructive agents in the future (v.7). `The world of that time' translates the Greek 
ho tote kosmos. The globe was not destroyed, only its inhabitants and its ordered form." (Blum, E.A., "2 
Peter," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 12 - Hebrews through 
Revelation," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1981, p.285).

"[2Pet 3:5-7] Peter's reference to a future conflagration to destroy the present cosmos is highly unusual. 
Some, indeed, would contend that it shows the influence of Stoic or Iranian (Persian) eschatology (TDNT, 
6:928-52). Yet the OT speaks of fire in the day of the Lord (Ps 97:3; [possibly Isa 34:4]; Isa 66:15-16; Dan 7:9-
10; Mic 1:4; Mal 4:1). And Matthew 3:11-12 speaks of the future baptism of fire by the Messiah in which he 
will destroy the `chaff ` (cf 2 Thess 1:7). Peter argues that just as in the past God purged the then-existing 
kosmos by his word and by waters, so in the future he will purge the kosmos by his word and by fire." 
(Blum, E.A., "2 Peter," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 12 - Hebrews 
through Revelation," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1981, p.285).

"[2Pet 3:8] Peter's second argument against the false teachers' scoffing at the `delay' of the Lord's coming 
stems from Psalm 90:4: `For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a 
watch in night.' They overlooked God's time perspective. The admonition `Do not forget' is addressed to 
believers and uses the same word (lanthano) that is used in v.5 of the false teachers' deliberate 
forgetfulness. Christians must be careful lest the propaganda of the scoffers distort their thinking." (Blum, 
E.A., "2 Peter," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 12 - Hebrews through 
Revelation," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1981, p.285).

"[2Pet 3:9] The third argument against the scoffers grows out of the second one. God's `delay' is gracious; it 
is not caused by inability or indifference. The scoffers argued that God was slow to keep his promise of the 
new age, and evidently some Christians were influenced by this ('as some understand slowness'). God's time 
plan is influenced by his patience (makrothymei), an attribute prominent in Scripture (cf Exod 34:6; Num 
14:18; Ps 86:15; Jer 15:15; Rom 2:4; 9:22)" (Blum, E.A., "2 Peter," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible 
Commentary: Volume 12 - Hebrews through Revelation," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1981, pp.285-286).


Copyright © 2011, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 16 January, 2011. Updated: 9 February, 2011.