Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?

Intro

I suggested in comments prior to accepting this debate that Con provide keyword definition in the Description, and gave 2 days, his designation of time to expiration of each participant's rounds, but Pro declined to specify in Comments or in the Challenge, therefore, the time has past and the non-specified condition is now unchangeable. This is unfortunate given the compatibility issue since, in this case, words matter, and we cannot simply argue on that basis, alone, because translation differences, alone, exist in English language Bibles. Having accepted the debate as is, I am using the King James version [KJV], but I will also argue on the basis of root sources in Hebrew and Greek, and definitions in Euclidean geometry. 

Further, I will define theistic evolution [T.E.]. My definition:

Creation by God of "the heaven and the earth" [Gen 1: 1] and all of life in those places, was by use of natural law. The nature of that law is such that man is woefully unaware of much of it whereas God's omniscience and omnipotence knows all. There is more to it, God being so far advanced beyond our understanding, but the broad strokes were demonstrated by Charles Darwin in his "Origin of Species." Further, in his 2nd Edition of that volume, Darwin acknowledged a "Creator" in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the volume. "Natural selection" is the term Darwin applied, meaning that while God originated the creation of fishes, fowls, beasts, and man, which are all inter-related by a singular design structure, i.e., the DNA-based genome, that genome, within each species, is capable of natural modification/mutation generation to generation... 

Note: "Based on their effects on fitness, mutations can be divided into three broad categories: the ‘good’ or advantageous that increase fitness, the ‘bad’ or deleterious that decrease it and the ‘indifferent’ or neutral that are not affected."[1]

Which is why, to the surprise of many, I'm sure, modern man shares about 67% of our DNA with a banana. Further, considering the disproven[a] theory of race, we all, the entire world population of men and women, share 99.9999... percent of our DNA.

In consideration of the Resolution: Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?

Thank you, SomeDebatePerson, for this debate.

I Argument: The unique creation features of Adam & Eve

I.a Subtitle: ...how our "creation" really is evidence of T.E., simply because it was first God who created, organizing order out of chaos. See Genesis 1: 2 - "...the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..."[2] - that is chaos. God, by creation, brought order out of chaos.

I.b The creation of Adam & Eve [A&E], however, is a separate creative task than the other "cattle and beasts of the field..." etc,, not because of the notice, "...God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..."[3] - which turns out to be the detail of creation of those other beasts [See Gen 2: 19], but more because of the form man would take: "God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;...'"[4] No other life form on Earth is said to be created in this form; only humans.

I.c A second unique creation feature of A&E is their being granted "...dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”[5] 

I.d Third unique creation feature of A&E: "...God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat..."[6] This is a feature of dominion given to man, allowing free will [and not universal determinism] but it is a cautionary gift: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."[7] While that may appear to be conflicting commands [free will vs. a forbidden choice with a consequence] it is important to understand by the Genesis account just how vital the gift of free will is, for, without it, the gift of dominion of the Earth is effectively defeated before it began, because we will make mistakes. We were not created perfect. More on that subject at the conclusion of this round [§II.c.1].

I.e Fourth, and last unique creation feature of A&E [curiously, not taught to A&E by God]: "...God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."[8] This education is from Lucifer [sidebar evidence that Lucifer can tell the truth, and actually often does, just to provide a subtle obstacle]! And, thus, the tree of that name [See Gen. 2; 17 [7]].

II Rebuttal; Con R1, Hebrew י֔וֹם [yo-wm - "day"], the Decalogue & the Sabbath, Death before the fall

II.a The Hebrew word, י֔וֹם [yo-wm] is a masculine, singular noun, therefore, typically referring to a single day of roughly 24 hours. However, it must be noted biblically, in the Genesis creation story, that even though from Day 1, there are designated, plural "evening and morning" events, the rising and setting Sun, the primary designated vehicle for day/night duration of a 24-hour period, is not created until the 4th day [Gen 1: 19], 67% into the creation event. Before that 4th day, there is light; it was the first act of creation, but nothing indicates that light was the Sun. That is a designated feature only of 4th-day creation. Before then, yo-wm may have been an undetermined period of time, as the word allows in some circumstance by Hebrew scholars.[9]

II.b The Sabbath is clearly a yo-wm interpretation of a 24-hour period. Lev 23: 32 - "...from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." This Leviticus verse offers two different versions of the word, "evening" in Hebrew, demonstrating in that language of the word as a prepositional phrase [מֵעֶ֣רֶב mê-é-reb from evening], and as a noun [עֶ֔רֶב - é-reb  evening]. Why the translators used "even" in this Leviticus verse, whereas Genesis renders "evening" is a question for them; "even" being an old English version. Perhaps separate books, therefore separate translators?

II.c Pro's R1 asks/claims, "If the evolutionary theory is true, death happened before the fall" and Pro follows that with "It also means God used death to create life and created things only for them to be destroyed and made into better versions, when they should have been created perfect."

II.c.1 Death before the fall? Where's the evidence for Pro's claims beyond personal opinion? This is the detail referenced above, §I.d] Clearly, in spite of the command of God that the fruit of the tree of knowledge not be eaten or A&E would die [Gen 2: 17][7], or the challenge by Lucifer that A&E would not die by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge [Gen 3: 5][8], the fact of the balance of existence in Eden [through Gen 3], A&E survived to experience the fall, and continued alive through the generation of Noah, nearly 1,000 years after the fall, through Genesis 5. One must count the years of begats of generations to Noah to realize Adam survived to the Flood prophet's lifetime. That is all biblical record. One presumes by this debate's sourcing relative to compatibility of just that volume's justification for and against the Resolve's BoPs, that biblical evidence is sufficient. Mere opinion is not.

II.c.2 The challenge by Pro that God should have created all creation in perfect form mistakes the purpose of creation in the first place. Gen. 1: 31 tells us, "...God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." But "very good" does not tell us it was "perfect." Earlier, Genesis tells us [Gen 1: 26-28] man was given dominion over the Earth, and that implies there's learning to be done to know how to exercise dominion properly. Lack of knowledge is not perfection. God's omniscience and omnipotence is perfect. We are not, nor by the preceding argument were we meant to be perfect now, nor at A&E's creation, nor at any time during mortality. Perfection is achieved someday, but not until mortality is left behind, or at least until Christ returns to Earth. Observe: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."[10]

I yield R2 to Con.

R1 Sources:                

[a] The Human Genome Project, concluded in 2003, that "race" does not exist as a feature of the human genome; it is a social, perhaps cultural construct, not genetic.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2871823/#:~:text=Mutations are one of the,proximity on the same chromosome.

[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 2

[3] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 7

[4] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 26

[5] ibid

[6] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16

[7] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 17

[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 3: 5

[9] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm

[10] Holy Bible [KJV] I John 3: 2-3

In consideration of the Resolution: Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?

III Argument: Theist creation [Genesis] and survival of the fittest

III.a Survival of the fittest can be described by simple terms: Suppose the following scenario, easily imagined as detail of the Genesis creation story, with a dose of imaginative anthropomorphing of creatures created on the fourth and fifth days:

III.a.1 A fish of the fourth day meets a rhino of the fifth when the rhino comes to the water's edge to drink and eat water plants. 

"Good morning, Rhino," says Fish," fine day, isn't it?"

"It is, Rhino admits. "You're Fish, aren't you?" 

"That's me. Say, would you like to meet some of my friends? Come on in; the water's very pleasant."

"Okay," Rhino says, "lead the way."

Fish turns and swims ahead. Rhino follows behind. He has already learned that water plants make good eating, as on land, and he has eaten plants near the shore, but soon, following Fish, he is over his head in deeper water. His weight overcomes any buoyancy. He wants to meet Fish's friends, so he continues following, now further behind, not realizing he left the environment he was created to live in as an air-breather, nor that Fish was meant to live in his natural environment of deep water. Rhino, fortunately, realizes he is violating the natural law of air-breathers, and hurries back to shore, not able to warn Fish that he cannot meet his friends unless they come close to shore as Fish did.

Fish realizes too late that Rhino was not created to live in a deep water environment, and laments that Rhino is not equipped with gills. Learn something new everyday... Fish muses, but he's happy Rhino was able to return to land, where he is meant to live.

III.a.2 Environmental limits on creatures of various types as created is a serious matter for all creatures, including the humans who will be created the following day. All creatures make mistakes, and some mistakes will eventually be fatal, including to the humans.

III.a.3 Much later, after Adam and Eve are banished from Eden, all of Earth is changed, and death enters the world, along with sorrow, pain, disappointment, but also pleasure, happiness, and continued learning. Adam and Eve learn their place in this new environment, how to tend it, weed it, nurture it, and make protective shelter for themselves of the abundant supplies available to them, which they must learn how to fashion and shape appropriately for their purposes and to fashion tools to assist that work. They learn how to manage living in their intended environment, as all other creatures and plants do, too. Humans have the further learned advantage that they can manipulate their natural environment to expand on their living and survival conditions. This is the purpose of creation: to have dominion of the Earth and her plants and creatures, and to learn how best to accomplish all they must do to return to the presence of Father, who created them all, and blessed them with learning capabilities.

III.b. Suppose that generations, and thousands of years pass, and humans increase their learning skills so that evolutionary creation might be employed by human intervention and interference to perform genetic manipulation, a road we are already paving, such that the human embryo could resist abortion, for example? What then, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice enthusiasts? Is that not also survival of the fittest, natural selection, even at such an early, unexpected age as the embryonic state?[11] 

IV Rebuttal, Con R1: "Didn’t God make the natural law?"

IV.a This, and §s V, VI & VII all share a common Con misconception: that these subjects are points of argument. I realize Con was unaware, but my arguments are organized by progressive Roman numeral sections throughout all rounds, followed by progressive alpha/numeric count for easy later reference by the format: R2, §IV.a [example of this paragraph]. But this rebuttal by Con addresses not an argument, but a pre-argument definition, offered because Con declined to offer his own definition of "theist creation," given a two-day opportunity to do so before I accepted the debate Challenge. I do not consider anything prior to numbered paragraphs to be argument, but merely opportunity for the initiator, in this case, Con, to offer the parameters of the debate in the Challenge, and for me, Pro, to enter side notes within the debate rounds, which are not arguments. 

IV.a.1 

That said, Con decided to rebut a non-argument that Darwin's 2nd edition of "On the Origin of Species" mentioned "a Creator." But, I did not argue a why or how of that mention, merely that Darwin wrote it. I am not going to deny Darwin wrote it, nor can Con; it is a matter of fact this is in the text of the volume cited.

V Rebuttal, Con R1: "Peter: 'the world was made by the word of God' and not the natural law.'"

V.a See §IV.a. I acknowledge the reference to Peter [II Peter 3: 5, 6 by the way]. Yes, God speaks and creation occurred. But that is a declaration of what was done by his word, and even why God created [see my R1, §II.c.2], but Peter, nor anyone else biblical, ever declared, how, "by his word," God created "the heaven and earth." I suggested [but the point does not alter the fact of creation, which, by the words of the Resolve, is assumed] the how was by use of natural law, which God may have established prior to the beginning of creation. Prep work. A preface, as in a book before the chapters.

VI Rebuttal, Con R2: "Darwin acknowledged a 'Creator'" 

VI.a See §IV.a. Just as above, this debate is not about Con's research as justification for his objection to this point. Darwin wrote it. Live with it. Darwin's original text of the 2nd Edition, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."[12] 

VII Rebuttal, Con R2: "man shares about 67% of our DNA with a banana"

VII.a See §IV.a. As above, this commentary exists pre-argument of my R1, offering definition, only, and no argument. Resolve creep. Slipping on the banana peel, which even bananas don't do.

VIII Rebuttal, Con R2: "organizing order out of chaos"

VIII.a Whether or not "creation" in my R1, §I.a was in quotes is irrelevant. We're arguing punctuation, now? Absurd. Con further rebuts, "Pro is trying to say that since God made order from chaos, He can make life from death." Con is assuming why I try to argue, but, clearly, Con is absent from my head, not in it. That is not what I was trying to say. However, in the spirit of cooperative reply, consider: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."[13] Life after death is precisely what is promised by the gift of God, through Christ, of resurrection from the dead. But this Con rebuttal is Resolve creep.

IX Rebuttal, Con R2: "light before the sun"

IX.a Clearly, by reading in context, i.e., reading more than this one verse, or just the verse describing creation of the Sun [Gen 1: 16] by Gen 1: 3, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." This is different light than the Sun. By the 3rd verse, we are not given a specific purpose of this light," whereas verse 16's lights, the 4th day's Sun and Moon, are to "rule... the day... and the night" respectively.

IX.b We also know, by proper Hebrew research, outlined in my R1, §II.a & II.b, by the separate words used in Hebrew for "day" in Genisis 1, י֔וֹם [yo-wm], including a longer, undetermined period of time. Whereas, the words "evening-to-evening" in Leviticus 23, [[מֵעֶ֣רֶב mê-é-reb from evening], and [עֶ֔רֶב - é-reb to evening]], describes a 24-hour period. These are two separate periods of time in Hebrew. 

IX Rebuttal, Con R2: "generations to Noah"

IX.a I now realize I mistakenly spread Adam's lifetime to Noah's generation. By re-count, I realize that Adam's life, by doing the laborious counting as I suggested in R1, §II.c.1, ends in Lamech's generation, Noah's father, 126 years before Noah's birth. Nevertheless, Adam's life extended from his creation through 9 generations before his death, a miss of just 14% of Adam's lifetime. By today's male life expectancy in the U.S. [75.8 years] the 126 years then is 11 years, now.[14] But the point is outside the scope of the Resolve, and therefore null.

R2 Sources:

[11] https://eternalzion.com/genesis-creation-evolution/

[12] Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species," 2nd Edition. last chapter, last paragraph

[13] Holy Bible [KJV] I Corinthians 15: 22

[14] https://usafacts.org/articles/do-women-live-longer-than-men-in-the-us/

In consideration of the Resolution: Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?

X Argument: Natural law, i.e., physical law vs morality, i.e., law of choice

X.a I see, by Con's R3, that it is necessary to distinguish natural, or physical law from moral law, or law of choice, since he argues that I anthropomorph... wait, I did warn that my R2, §III.a.1 argument was " a bit of [imagination]." The distinction is that natural or physical laws are matters of science, i,e, how heaven and earth, the universe function, with features like creatures with various physiologies of inhale/exhale of air. C.S. Lewis described the distinction thus: "Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation [natural, physical law] is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave."[15] Natural or physical law cannot be broken in the sense that God forbids them to be broken as a matter of choice, such as breathing is not "chosen." Therefore, God does not consider breaking a natural or physical law, like gravity, or breathing in a wrong medium, as a sin, such as falling accidentally off a ladder, or losing balance after knee surgery in a Christmas-shopping crowd and falling into a lady laden with packages. It happens! Happened to me last Christmas. Under different circumstances, after the fact, we apologize and help the lady recover her packages, and may offer to carry them to her car, but these are not matters of moral law, such as willfully stealing a neighbor's property, which God does consider as sin. 

X.b Moral law is inherent and accessible to human reason as matters of choice, and are, therefore, subject to God's displeasure for our choices to break them by sin, which requires our repentance from committing such acts and seeking God's forgiveness. But this is not a matter of evolution, theistic, or not, even if bordering on matters of biblical weight, and therefore is outside the scope of the debate. Again, this was a part of definition of theistic evolution, not argument.

XI Rebuttal, Con R3: "A funny start."

XI.a Con admits to R3 strawmaning. Re-read my entire §X, and subs, above, if necessary, and which I already anticipated having to explain further before Con posted his R3, and wrote 2 days ago. I need say no more on that topic.

XII Rebuttal, Con R3: "Embryo Evolution."

XII.a Supposing, by which I began my R2, §III.b argument, is not a claim; it is a supposition; a posit, a figure of speech implying that which may not be truth today, but could be a future possibility. The genetics of such a phenomenon pass to following generations by the same means they do now: if it is a feature that improves survival rate, the genome will adopt it to pass to future generations, just as other features of physiology have been evident in theist evolution, such as follows the command in Genesis to A&E: "...God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:..."[16] Consider Matthew 25: 14-30; the Parable of the Talents. The core of the parable is, indeed, speaking of talents, as was understood in that ancient rime as a large sum of money. However, even then, parables were known to metaphoric, such that "talents" could represent such responsibilities as referenced above to take dominion of the Earth and learn to subdue it. "The most popular interpretation of this is that God gives us abilities and gifts (‘talents’) and leaves us to get on with using them in fruitful and enterprising ways as responsible stewards until he returns and asks us to give an account of what we have done."[17]

XII.b However, I did caution in R1, Intro, 4th § regarding multiple types of mutation, which is what a genome change is. See R1, [1].

XIII Rebuttal, Con R3: "St. Peter."

XIII.a Con rebutted: "Doesn’t 'by' imply how it happened?" No, as I explained in R2, §V.a; "...the how was by use of natural law, which God may have established prior to the beginning of creation. Prep work." By God's word is the vehicle of application of that "how." 

XIII.b Then, Con said, "...if God was the only one around at creation, why are you going to trust people who weren’t there?" Who said God was the only one around? He didn't: "...Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."[4] as I argued in R1, §I.b. God was not alone, and did not act alone. This is not a citation of scientists, and is not a citation from "Mr. Science"[18]; it is God speaking for him, and others with him, thank you. As for argument that the Bible used the royal, first person plural "we" as self-reference of God to himself, let's snuff this one before Con attempts its claim, which is refuted by biblical scholars.[19]

XIV Rebuttal, Con R3: "Assumptions."

XIV.a Con claims, "Pro assumes what is in God’s head." No, I make no assumptions unless I say so, such as the mentioned Fish & Rhino story [a fiction] in my R2, as explained, again, above, §X.a. I have cited biblical scripture specifically as a requirement of the Resolve to demonstrate theist evolution. I note Con has cited nobody but Exodus in R1, and copied several of my 19 citations in R1, R2, R3.

XV Rebuttal, Con R3: "Meaning of 'day.'"

XV.a I will have explained this issue in all 3 rounds. "Day" was not the word used in the ancient scripts that became the text of the Holy Bible, after thousands of years, originally, it is supposed, written in Hebrew, then Greek, then translated to other languages, finally to English, which uses "day," as a 24-hour [approximately, period of time. I will cite my argument from R1, II.a: 

XV.a.1 "The Hebrew word, י֔וֹם [yo-wm] is a masculine, singular noun, therefore, typically referring to a single day of roughly 24 hours. However, it must be noted biblically, in the Genesis creation story, that even though from Day 1, there are designated, plural "evening and morning" events, the rising and setting Sun, the primary designated vehicle for day/night duration of a 24-hour period, is not created until the 4th day [Gen 1: 19], 67% into the creation event. Before that 4th day, there is light; it was the first act of creation, but nothing indicates that light was the Sun. That [the Sun] is a designated feature only of 4th-day creation. Before then, yo-wm may have been an undetermined period of time, as the word allows in some circumstance by Hebrew scholars.[9]

XV.b We have yet to see Con's rebuttal, with citation, of these Hebrew scholars. Persosnal opinion is what it is. Insufficient.

I yield the last round to Con.

R3 Sources:

[15] https://godandthegoodlife.org/c-s-lewis-mere-christianity-chapters-3-4/#:~:text=Summing Up,we find pressing on us.

[16] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 26

[17] https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-parable-of-the-talents-in-matthew-25-video-discussion/

[18] https://www.facebook.com/HookedOnScience/posts/jason-lindsey-aka-mr-science-is-a-well-known-science-educator-and-tv-personality/1141795787317078/#

[19] https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm

In consideration of the Resolution: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?

IX Rebuttal: Why I threw a ringer in R2 re: "theist evolution"

Y.a In movie jargon, a plot misdirection is a deliberate technique by a filmmaker to manipulate audience perception, drawing their attention to one thing, like a magician's ruse on one hand, while an entirely different, unexpected event is actually happening in the other. That manipulation has purpose: our [Con & Pro] two debates, "Does the Bible teach a flat earth," and "Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?" Both debates were proposed by Con. These are really a one-reel documentary. That's it. Mystery solved. Popcorn eaten.

X Rebuttal: "[Con] will argue that the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat."

X.a Will? Through 4 rounds, Con has failed to mention the Bible, period, except once in R2, and once in R4, the latter of which will be discussed next §. As for R2, Con said, "Biblical Hebrew had no word for sphere or disk," which is not even a biblical citation, and that sphere nor disk "...have nothing to do with the sun." Well, that, taken as a stand-alone statement, cuts Con's BoP scene, quoted as the title of this section from this debate's Description, completely out of the movie, left on the cutting room floor. No Oscar for that edit. 

X.a.1 As for the R4 Bible reference, Con argued that the Hebrew "evening and morning" "have nothing to do with the sun." Con challenged to "Look up the Hebrew words for evening and morning." In Hebrew, עֶ֥רֶב ['e-reb] - evening, 'to mix' or 'intermingle,' reflects the blend of light and darkness at twilight, i.e., the beginning of night of a typical 24-hour day, once the sun was created on the fourth day[19], while this mention of "evening and morning" is a first-day event.

X.a.2 Further, in Hebrew, בֹ֖קֶר [bō-ker] - morning, is interpreted from a root signifying the "breakthrough" or "cleaving" of light from the darkness of night, i.e., a normal morning.[20] Both interpretation summaries of the two germane words, evening and morning, give reference to the Sun, contrary to Con's claim in his R2 quote.

X.a.3 Therefore, Con, once again, might have done this research himself in both instances of his 2 Bible references, and, in so doing, mount at least one argument that actually supported the Con-stated BoP that, "[Con] will argue that theistic evolution is not compatible with the Bible." But Con failed to do so, while claiming, "Look, I’ve done research on this..." [R2], and, ultimately demonstrate at least mention of "theistic evolution," let alone "teach" anything. But, sadly, Con never, in 4 rounds, mentions either term. Does that meet any standard of proof? No.

Y Rebuttal: Con R4, Pro said "'us' in Genesis means God wasn’t alone"

Y.a But I first argued "let us make man..." in R1, §I.b[4], and that it was plural gods by statement of "us" and "...in our image..." and Con has been rebutting this ever since without, again, a shred of biblical reference to support his opposition. Let there be sources and not just opinions. Not to mention that whether or not it is one or several gods, it is outside the scope of the debate, so, why make an issue of it in opposition? I tire of repeating that.

Z Conclusion: Ferris Bueller, et al

Z.a "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."[21]  Ferris Bueller then tells us: "You're still here? It's over. Go home. Go."[21]

Thank you, SomeDebatePerson, for this debate.

Members of the Academy of DC [DebateCraft readers/voters]: Please watch the entire documentary, then consider which scenes support a Con-directed plot, but vote the Oscar for Pro's scenic and epic-produced evidences that the Bible teaches a flat Earth. As the slated star of the movie, Earth deserves to be Capitalized. 

By the way, this is entirely a Hollowood production. I no more believe the Earth is flat than I do the proposition that life imitates art, if Hollowood, is, as Hollowood claims, exemplary of art. Being an artist by profession, who grew up there, I know it's the opposite. Only, in Hollowood's case, it can only try, but never succeed. Eh, okey-dokey[21], Ferris Bueller came close.

R4 sources:

[19] https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/25597/question-with-regard-to-dual-meanings-in-the-hebrew-words-erev-and-boker-in

[20] https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/25597/question-with-regard-to-dual-meanings-in-the-hebrew-words-erev-and-boker-in

[20] "Ferris Beuller's Day Off," John Hughes, Paramount Pictures, 1986

[21] Originated by Spanky McFarland of The Little Rascals "Our Gang,"a long-running series produced as comedy shorts when movie double-features were once popular and inexpensive