How is Theistic-evo. compatible with the bible?

[Amleto]

Please note that my question is not what evidence there is for 6day/theistic evolution, but rather how can evolution in any form be compatible with the bible?

Something happened a few months ago that made me belive that there was a Christian God, but I don't think that I can accept that evolution didn't happen. It appears to me that for the bible to hold weight one must accept that the creation took place in 6 days.

I am thus left in my current quandry, and if one part of the bible seems to fail for me then this unvalidates it (for me) as a whole :(

And then there's the flood, but I guess that's another thread...

[notto]

If we look at the creation God made as a work of God as well, it tells us HOW God created. This leads us to the assumption that the scripture gives us the theological rational of WHY God created.

Theistic evolution is simply a looking at both works of God, the bible, and the creation itself, and then reconciling them. The bible tells us why God created and God's creation gives us clues as to how God did it.

Theistic evolutionists accept that God would not trick us by leaving false evidence in the creation so any evidence we find concerning the nature of this creation can be accepted as valid.

Evolution and Geology as well as a study of the scriptures themselves and their translation over the years from their original language to what we have now in English give us many clues that the creation narratives in the bible are allegorical.

This does not mean that the WHY of God creating is wrong or false. The bible is intended to give us answers to theological questions, not scientific ones.

[eunice]

6 "days" might not have been, you know literally that. Even though it does say in the bible that "there was evening, and there was morning" but you know, it could all be a matter of interpretation.

[Amleto]

from the amount of times yom is used in similar context there can be no confusion that a literal day is meant in this case.

If you want to argure about the expansion of the universe dilating time then that is another thing but I am not convinced that that works either.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Amleto - the vast majority of Christians in our country do not consider that Genesis is literal, nor that there is any conflict between Christianity and mainstream science.

I have a web site section at http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm where you might want to begin. I can also heartily recommend Russell Stannard's Doing Away with God? and Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God for your reading list.

[iac]

I believe many Christians have chosen to be Theistic-evolutionist because they want to fit in with both parties. Not to be ridiculed or insulted by one and to be accepted in the other, but not because the Bible embraces it.
Now to know that the Bible totally rejects this idea of both God and evolution read Gen. 1:21-25. All you need to read are those verses I just gave you, and there is nothing else in the Bible that supports this idea.



Don't stradle the fence dear friend.

[Amleto]

I don't see how that passage rejects evolution as Gods method for creation.

[iac]

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their own kinds, and every winged bird according to its own kind."

See it now?

[Amleto]

Asking the same question and expecting a different answer can be interpretated as the sign of a fool. Can you explain how that passage excludes evolution as a possible Godly process?

It looks like I have 'switched sides' from my first post, that just goes to show how confused I am!

[iac]

I was hoping you would see it yourself.


If God says "...Bird after its own kind.." or "...According to their own kinds...."

That means the a bird gives birth to a bird and everything gives birth to their own kind. God knew people would ask this question and He answered it.
That verse shows that nothing He created changes from species to species. Got it?

[Amleto]

Allowing for an evolutionary process: The change in any given generation would be too small for one to not be able to say 'this bird is according to its own kind' or similar.

[iac]

I think God would know. When He said one after its own kind He was practically saying everything will stay the same. Yes, I know there is some evolution within a species but NEVER in history has a species gone to a different species. If that verse isn't good enough for you then you're are just going with your own idea and not with the Bible which is your choice, but if you wanna ask this question you have to be at least reasonable.

That is all I have to say now. Good day.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I think God would know. When He said one after its own kind He was practically saying everything will stay the same. Yes, I know there is some evolution within a species but NEVER in history has a species gone to a different species.
And that is where you are wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If that verse isn't good enough for you then you're are just going with your own idea and not with the Bible which is your choice, but if you wanna ask this question you have to be at least reasonable.

That is all I have to say now. Good day.
There's nothing wrong with the verse. As Amleto has seen, it doesn't preclude evolution. I'm sure Latin speakers' children spoke Latin, but it didn't stop Spanish and French from evolving over time.

[Mr.Cheese]

Why does one have to do with the other?
If you choose to be a theistic evolutionist or not, Either way I would love to say "Welcome to the family bro."

I dont' see either as heresy.
I believe the creation account was dealing with larger issues. I believe it was God creating light, space and time. He was creating the categories through which we experience life and in which science must operate. Science is our curiosity. When God spoke the universe into being, I dont' think he was worried about whether or not we were going to think the Earth was flat or that we would think the sun went around the Earth. By making the bible a science book, people were killed when they said anything contrary to "doctrine." By making it a science book, you have a text a few thousand year out of date.
I think making the bible a science book denigrates the purpose God had for it.
But regardless of whether we agree or disagree, Jesus exceeds (or should exceed) our division on such matters.
There is no reason for me or anyone to anathematize you for believing such.
For me, as a Christian, I believe that through Jesus Christ, what unites us is greater than what may try to divide us.

[iac]

I see absolutely no evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution. I really have no idea why people started believing it did, and if anyone has any evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution I would love to see it.
So if anyone can bring up some reasonable evidence that the Bible supports this idea I will agree that it is an in-house debate. Otherwise I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity.

[Buttermilk]

You are entitled to your opinion.

I hate it though when people pick out single verses and twist them to try and make it mean what they want it to mean.

The verse you quote no more proves or disproves either creation or evolution.

[iac]

I did not twist that verse. If that verse doesn't mean what I said it does please tell me your interpretation, and if anyone twist verses their own way just to be right then that anyone isn't me. If you can come up with a better explanation of that verse and what it means I would love to hear it.


Now does anyone have any reasonable evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution? Any?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I see absolutely no evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution. I really have no idea why people started believing it did, and if anyone has any evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution I would love to see it.
So if anyone can bring up some reasonable evidence that the Bible supports this idea I will agree that it is an in-house debate. Otherwise I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity.
Thank you. You are aware of course that this violates rule 1?

I do not accept evolution because it's in the Bible. I accept it for the same reasons I accept wave/particle duality, quantum theory and heliocentricity - Evidence. Why do I have to find evolution in the Bible when I don't have to find any other scientific model?

'sides. There is a hint in Genesis 1 - the text repeatedly says "God said - let the Earth bring forth... and it was so" - each time equating that with "So God created...". To the writer of Genesis, like the theistic evolutionist, the Earth bringing forth is the same thing as God creating.

[iac]

Thank you. You are aware of course that this violates rule 1?

I do not accept evolution because it's in the Bible. I accept it for the same reasons I accept wave/particle duality, quantum theory and heliocentricity - Evidence. Why do I have to find evolution in the Bible when I don't have to find any other scientific model?

'sides. There is a hint in Genesis 1 - the text repeatedly says "God said - let the Earth bring forth... and it was so" - each time equating that with "So God created...". To the writer of Genesis, like the theistic evolutionist, the Earth bringing forth is the same thing as God creating.\

No, I was not aware. I didn't think my doubt that the Bible supports theistic-evolution would violate a rule. Oh, rule 1 is flamming? I was not flamming thank you very much. I was and am not harassing, insulting, belittling, threatening, or flamming. I was only stating my opinion.


And I don't care for your reasons for believing in evolution but this thread is about how it can be mixed with the Bible and still be Christianity.


I am sure I am wrong but is there only one "hint" in the Bible that supports theistic-evolution? I just read the whole chapter of Gen. 1 and I couldn't find a single verse where God said,"Let the earth bring forth." So either it is my Bible translation or you are wrong on that. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give me the verse. I am very doubtfull of someone who says it is in the Bible but doesn't have a verse.

[Mr.Cheese]

My point was to say that the blood of Jesus is more important than arguing over theistic evolution.

[iac]

Okay Mr. Cheese I suppose you are right.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

\

No, I was not aware. I didn't think my doubt that the Bible supports theistic-evolution would violate a rule. Oh, rule 1 is flamming? I was not flamming thank you very much. I was and am not harassing, insulting, belittling, threatening, or flamming. I was only stating my opinion.

No. The potential breaking of Rule 1 is saying that "I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity" and thereby implying that theistic evolutionists are not Christians.

And I don't care for your reasons for believing in evolution but this thread is about how it can be mixed with the Bible and still be Christianity.

And maybe you don't care. But whether a given other poster cares about something is not a criterion for posting a message.

I am sure I am wrong but is there only one "hint" in the Bible that supports theistic-evolution? I just read the whole chapter of Gen. 1 and I couldn't find a single verse where God said,"Let the earth bring forth." So either it is my Bible translation or you are wrong on that. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give me the verse. I am very doubtfull of someone who says it is in the Bible but doesn't have a verse.

Genesis 1

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Three times the formula is used. Each time the earth or the waters bringing forth is equated with God creating. The point is here is not that Genesis 1 teaches evolution - it doesn't; it's not concerned with science - but rather that the Biblical concept of what it means for God to create is compatible with an evolutionary process being used.

And Mr Cheese is right. I don't like discussing contentious issues on the New Christians board, but when someone puts unnecessary stumbling blocks in someone's way, someone has to remove them.

[seebs]

I think a study of what Jews and early Christians (such as Augustine) taught about creation would help a lot. They focus a great deal on moral messages, and frequently observe that it's obviously not six 24-hour days.

[iac]

I can't get rid of my post. I accedentally pressed the post button twice.

[iac]

No. The potential breaking of Rule 1 is saying that "I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity" and thereby implying that theistic evolutionists are not Christians.



And maybe you don't care. But whether a given other poster cares about something is not a criterion for posting a message.





Three times the formula is used. Each time the earth or the waters bringing forth is equated with God creating. The point is here is not that Genesis 1 teaches evolution - it doesn't; it's not concerned with science - but rather that the Biblical concept of what it means for God to create is compatible with an evolutionary process being used.

And Mr Cheese is right. I don't like discussing contentious issues on the New Christians board, but when someone puts unnecessary stumbling blocks in someone's way, someone has to remove them.



First of all when I said I would continue saying I meant I would hold to my opinion so therefore it was not flamming.
Second of all you shouldn't have even talked about why you accept evolution because it has nothing to do with this thread and I believe it should be considered spamming.
Third of all I did not place a stumbling block. I think you're going over the line there pal. You have no right or place to say something that is insulting and untrue.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

First of all when I said I would continue saying I meant I would hold to my opinion so therefore it was not flamming.
The issue is not flaming per se - the issue is implying other members (e.g. me) are not Christians because they accept evolution.

Second of all you shouldn't have even talked about why you accept evolution because it has nothing to do with this thread and I believe it should be considered spamming.
Nope. Don't see how you'd consider it spamming. It was very germaine to the discussion because the question was raised as to where the Bible actually teaches evolution. Of course, it doesn't. The reasons for accepting it are others and I explained what they were.

Third of all I did not place a stumbling block. I think you're going over the line there pal. You have no right or place to say something that is insulting and untrue.
Boot's on the other foot now? I do consider the teaching that one must accept a literalistic creation interpretation to be a Christian puts a massive stumbling block in people's way - it would certainly have prevented me from seriously considering the faith. The difference is that my statement is not in breach of forum rules as far as I can see.

[iac]

I did not say if someone believed in theistic-evolution they can't be Christians. I was only saying it is not Biblical (which it isn't) and the reasons I believe people accept it.

And evolution isn't a fact you know. It isn't proven nor will it be proven.

And again I was saying not you can't be a Christian if you believe it. If you want to be Biblical you can't but you can also stradle the fence as they say.

The Bible clearly says the earth was made in six days. What more do you want when the Bible says six days?! And no six does not mean six billion. If it did the Bible would have said so. To prove this I will quote from the Bible. Gen 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
There's the first day right there. It was the evening and the morning not billions of them. How much more clear do you want it?

[Amleto]

And again I was saying not you can't be a Christian if you believe it. If you want to be Biblical you can't but you can also stradle the fence as they say.
ie if one is a Christian searching for the truth in the Bible, one is not allowed to accept evolution? That is tantamount to saying believers of theistic evolution do not accept the Word of God.

Surely to be Christian you have to accept the Word of God?

It looks to me like you have yourself in a pickle.

[iac]

ie if one is a Christian searching for the truth in the Bible, one is not allowed to accept evolution? That is tantamount to saying believers of theistic evolution do not accept the Word of God.

Surely to be Christian you have to accept the Word of God?

It looks to me like you have yourself in a pickle.


Lol! A pickle? Not even close.


Some may not know much of the Bible. Maybe they don't have a Bible and they don't know that it is not Biblical. You can still be a Christian. Now let's say you do know what they Bible says like my above post on Gen 1. You can still be a Christian but may be either still ignorant or just disobediant. And I'm not just talking about theistic-evolution this goes for a whole lot of things.


Let's say you believe people become angles when they die. That is clearly untrue according to the Bible but you can still be a Christian. See what I'm saying? I'm clearly not in a "pickle."

[Amleto]

Lol! A pickle? Not even close.


Some may not know much of the Bible. Maybe they don't have a Bible and they don't know that it is not Biblical. You can still be a Christian. Now let's say you do know what they Bible says like my above post on Gen 1. You can still be a Christian but may be either still ignorant or just disobediant. And I'm not just talking about theistic-evolution this goes for a whole lot of things.


Let's say you believe people become angles when they die. That is clearly untrue according to the Bible but you can still be a Christian. See what I'm saying? I'm clearly not in a "pickle."
What if I study Genesis and decide that that it is perfectly compatible with evolution?

Now you call me ignorant or disobediant.

Would you allow me to take the spade out of your hands?

[iac]

If you can be completely honest in your study then no. But you see you can study Genesis all your life and you'll never find it supports evolution. Go ahead be my guest. If you do an honest study and come back to me and say that it is compatible then I'll be okay with that. I would also need a reason.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh. I see IAC. I'm either ignorant or disobedient. Thank you so much. Who set you up as judge over your brothers? Why do some conservatives have this inbuilt need to denigrate the intellectual honesty, faith or obedience of other Christians?

Ignorant - Not Guilty. I know as well as you what the early chapters of Genesis say. I demonstrated earlier in this thread that I knew what Genesis 1 actually said better than you - "let the earth bring forth", remember? The dispute is what they mean.

Disobedient - Not Guilty. I have not seen any command "Thou shalt take the early chapters of Genesis literally". What I do see are very good reasons for not doing so - and some of those reasons are in the very text itself - two contradictory creation stories, trees with symbolic fruit, a man and woman with generic names - "Man" and "Mother of all". To me this screams out "symbolic narrative!" in letters ten feet tall.

I expand on this in my essay here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm - which I put online to save reinventing the wheel every time I'm attaked by literalists.

[iac]

You obviously missed my point completely. Did you even read my above post to Amleto? And "Let the earth bring forth" is about the most redicules argument for theistic-evolution I've ever heard. If you or anyone could come to me with a reasonable argument of why the Bible supports it then I will consider it and stop arguing.

So you are saying the Adam and Eve are symbolic? That pretty much destroys a whole lot of the Bible. In fact it would destroy the Bible completely! It would mean Adam and Eve didn't commit sin and we therefore didn't inherit a sin nature and in result wouldn't need Jesus Christ to save us from our sins! This is one of the reasons I fight theistic-evolution with all my heart! And another reason I fight it is because it would mean God is cruel. Isn't evolution the survival of the fittest? Did God just let everything evolve and sit back and watch the show? I don't think so.


If you can't come up with something better than "Let the earth bring forth" then don't bother me.

[Amleto]

So you are saying the Adam and Eve are symbolic? That pretty much destroys a whole lot of the Bible. In fact it would destroy the Bible completely! It would mean Adam and Eve didn't commit sin and we therefore didn't inherit a sin nature and in result wouldn't need Jesus Christ to save us from our sins!

If Adam and Eve are taken to be symbolic then one can still interpret that our nature is sinful, and thus a need for Christ is still evident. Your argument is flawed.


And another reason I fight it is because it would mean God is cruel.

Why so?

[iac]

It's not nearly as flawed as your's.

Why so? Because evolution is the survival of the fittest. The weak die and the strong live.

There is no reason why Adam and Eve would be symbolic nor the six day creation. You're just shifting the Bible the way it fits you better.

[iac]

Also Cain and Able are two of the many sons of Adam and Eve. So if Adam and Eve are symbolic that would mean Cain and Able are too and if they are then that would mean Seth is. So if Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, and Seth are symbolic that would mean Enos is and his descendents and on and on and on. You see it doesn't make sense for Adam and Eve to be symbolic. Seth's descendent eventually lead up to Christ and if Seth is symbolic are you going to go as far to say the Christ is too? Where do you draw the line?

[Amleto]

It's not nearly as flawed as your's.
That has as much validity to it as a five year old's argument;
"Is too."
"Is not."
"Is too."
because it contains no justification.


Why so? Because evolution is the survival of the fittest. The weak die and the strong live.
Thats what animals do. Humans do things just as bad (and worse) but does that make God cruel?

There is no reason why Adam and Eve would be symbolic nor the six day creation. You're just shifting the Bible the way it fits you better. Despite the two contradictory accounts already pointed out by Karl? Despite the all encompassing names Adam and Eve?

[iac]

That's what animals do huh? Did you not read that God watches over the sparrows? God will not allow even the smallest creature to die unless it is in His will.

[iac]

Now instead of arguing about Adam and Eve could you please explain to me how the six days could be symbolic? "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Black and white. Clear as day. Right there. "And the evening and the morning were the second day." So on and on. Now if the six is meant to be six billion or whatever explain to me why it would say that. Evening and the morning make up just one day as it clearly says in the Bible.

[Amleto]

That's what animals do huh? Did you not read that God watches over the sparrows? God will not allow even the smallest creature to die unless it is in His will.
Well even you have agreed that evolution within a species occurs. You have also said that evolution would make God cruel.

Thus by your own premises God is cruel. You are tripping over yourself.

[Amleto]

Now instead of arguing about Adam and Eve could you please explain to me how the six days could be symbolic? "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Black and white. Clear as day. Right there. "And the evening and the morning were the second day." So on and on. Now if the six is meant to be six billion or whatever explain to me why it would say that. Evening and the morning make up just one day as it clearly says in the Bible.
I believe it is consistent to take the six days as literal, but within a symbolic account. This literalsim would allow one to not get bogged down in the 'details'.

[iac]

Well even you have agreed that evolution within a species occurs. You have also said that evolution would make God cruel.

Thus by your own premises God is cruel. You are tripping over yourself.

Far from it. I believe in micro-evolution which is the change within a species. It has nothing at all to do with the strong shall survive or the weak will die. So I have in no way said God is cruel. If I have a dog that's black and another dog that's a bit smaller and all white and I bread them together I may get a dog that's smaller and white with some black spots. Or if I have a big dog and bread it with a little dog I may get a medium sized dog. That's micro-evolution. I do not however believe in macro-evolution which is the survival of the fittest.

[iac]

Okay I'm done for now. I will not reply to this thread any longer. I have placed my argument and I hope it helps you in your search for the truth Amleto. God bless you all.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Amleto has seen straight through Iac's argument. I notice my reference to the "let the earth bring forth" formula has been handwaved as "about the most redicules(sic) argument", without addressing at all the issue that creation responding to a command of God by producing what God desires is equated with God creating.

There is no distinction between the processes involved in natural and artificial selection. The former does not require that "the strong live and the weak die"; it requires merely that the most fit have the most offspring. Nothing more. This is exactly what we do by choosing which dogs to breed from to create a new breed. God is no more cruel than a poodle fancier.

Amleto is also spot on with his understanding of the Genesis narratives - the issue of their literality is not central. My work here is done, the stumbling block is removed.