The Defense calls the Prophet Moses to the witness stand.
Defense: Sir, please describe for the Judge your qualifications for the testimony you are about to give.
Moses: Even though I was slow of speech and sometimes disobedient, the LORD chose me (for his own reasons I might add) to be his spokesman, and I had the incredible honor of having a one-on-one relationship with him. It started in Exodus 3 (v2-16) when he appeared to me in a burning bush and revealed to me his personal name - YHWH! He said I was to go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go. Then he gave me explicit instructions (chapter after chapter: 4-14) what I was to do. It's all recorded there, "The LORD said to Moses ...." -- some 75 times in the book of Exodus alone.
Then in Exodus 19 the LORD called me up to Mt. Sinai and told me that we Jews were to be his people forever, and he was giving me the Law which we were to follow (chapters 20-34). He told me to write down all his words so that we would know exactly what he said (24:3-7; 34:27-28). Then even more amazingly, he wrote down in his own hand the Ten Commandments, twice even (31:18; 32:15-16; 34:1)!
Jesus later testified that all this is true and that I indeed was the LORD's spokesman (John 7:19; 5:46-47). All traditional OT, rabbinic, and NT sources over the millennia have validated this testimony -- that not only what's recorded in Exodus is true and infallible, but so is what I recorded in all five books of the Torah -- including Genesis. God spoke directly to me and I faithfully reproduced what he said, including what this trial is all about -- how he brought Adam and Eve into existence.
I was there at the beginning, in a very real sense, since God gave me his words to record for posterity on how he created the universe and everything in it, including mankind.
Defense: You've seen the plaintiff's testimony concerning evolution. And you've seen how he uses Scripture to suggest that evolution is the mechanism by which human beings were first created. You're here to testify as an expert witness on the Scriptures and not biology. But tell me Sir, what is your opinion about the plaintiff's scientific testimony so far since he is using Scripture to help make his case for evolution?
Moses: Well, to his credit the plaintiff's version of evolution is a significant improvement over the atheistic Darwinist's version in that he defines evolution as being God directed. God does have a plan and purpose for creating mankind. This version of evolution is also wrong, but it is better than the Darwinian version which denies God's direction altogether.
The plaintiff is also correct in declaring that God created all things (the Darwinian version is either atheistic or agnostic at best), and that God is subsequently active in the growth of every living thing he creates (the plaintiff correctly quotes Ps 139:13 and Job 31:15 for example).
We all understand that genetic variation and natural selection play a significant role in adaptation of a species, e.g., to environmental changes. And we all understand that genetic variation can occur. But what all evolutionists fail to acknowledge is that this God-created mechanism is bounded. That is, evolution has been established by God to operate within limits (micro-evolution). But it does not have the power to produce new body plans (macro-evolution). The plaintiff is clearly wrong in extrapolating variation beyond what you call "species" "families" or "orders". There are limits to genetic variation.
The Holy Spirit had me use the Hebrew word "min" to describe those limits. It is usually translated "kinds" in English. While not exactly corresponding to your modern biological classifications, it does indicate a narrow specification of various types of living things (for example see Lev 11:13-23; Deu 14:11-20). The reason God created "kinds" this way is so they would reproduce only according their "min" (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15). In the NT, Paul collaborates this in 1 Cor 15:38-39 when he says, "But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another."
The most critical error the plaintiff makes, however, is when he puts humankind into the same classification as the animals. As Luke testified, mankind (male/female) is a totally unique kind of being -- directly and specially created by God in his image. After man's direct creation by God he/she were instructed to procreate in order to fill the earth, but not be independent of his help (Gen 4:1).
Defense: Which brings me to the main testimony I want to elicit from you today -- from your area of expertise, the Scriptures. How did God describe to you creation verses procreation of humankind?
Moses: First, you will see from the plaintiff's testimony how confused he is about the subject. Although I'm delighted to see that he is going to the pages of Scripture for his recent information, he continually quotes verses that are about procreation (i.e., male/female giving rise to offspring) and not creation, i.e., when God brought male and female into existence as unique creatures they had no previous physical history.
The Creator himself testified to this on Day 1 of the trial (Ps 148:5; Job 33:6; 1 Tim 2:13; Mt 19:4; 1 Cor 11:9; Gen 5:2). Then on Day 2, Luke showed how the genealogies testify to the special creation of Adam as the son of God - a special creation (Lk 3:38; Gen 5:1; Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6; Gen 1:27). And then there are the verses that the plaintiff declared allegory and therefore inadmissible. But when I originally wrote those verses down I recorded them as history ( Gen 2:18, 21-24; Gen 3:19b, 20). Any traditional exegetical method clearly reveals that these verses are about the original creation of male and female.
Most all the other verses about origination are about procreation by the male and female and not about creation of them (Job 31:15; Ps 139:13; Ec 11:5; Is 44:2, 24; Jer 1:5; Gen 4: 1, 2, 25; Job 39:1, 2; Ec 3:2; 1 Cor 11:12). Some of these verses the plaintiff uses incorrectly to justify creation through evolution. The other verses the plaintiff quote have either nothing to do with the subject; are taken entirely out of context; or are twisted in an unrecognizable way to any legitimate exegetical method.
Defense: I respectfully request Judge Solomon to carefully examine all the verses presented by both sides and differentiate for the Court those describing the original creation of male and female versus those describing the subsequent procreation by male and female. Also to throw out all the verses that don't meet appropriate exegetical standards. It is the Defense's contention that most of the verses presented by the plaintiff fall into that category.
Last edited by stu on Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:49 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : grammar)