Evolution and how God acts

[Mallon]

Where is what it says factually in error?

Try reading the link I provided.

 

[Iosias]

Try reading the link I provided.

What I want you to do is show where my links have stated what TEs believe in a way that is factually wrong.

I have skimmed your link and I see nothing factually wrong in my articles in their presentation of what TEs believe.

​

 

[Assyrian]

Of course Calvin was a geocentrist and Luther called Copernicus a fool for denying the plain meaning of scripture. So Reformation doctrines on scripture do not always work. But you will find TEs span the spectrum of views on scripture from inerrantist to liberal.

I think science shows us where traditional interpretations fail, as they did with Luther and Calvin's geocentrism. When they do it is time to go back to scripture and see what scripture says for itself rather than what tradition said about it.

If scripture interprets scripture, which I think is a very wise approach, how does scripture interpret the six days of creation? They come up in Genesis and Exodus, but how does the rest of scripture deal with them? Are they treated literally or figuratively?

 

[Iosias]

Read Refuting Evolution online here.

Read Refuting Evolution 2 online here.

 

[JMC309]

God is indeed perfect and not able to sin. Adam on the other had was created perfect but able not to sin. Adam was free to not sin or to sin. That does not negate perfection on the part of Adam and the creation. The creation was "very good".

'Very good' and 'perfect' are different. God is better than Adam as God is not able to sin. Hence it is possible to be greater than Adam (God is greater). Therefore Adam was not perfect, as you cannot be better than perfect. Only God is perfect. I cannot see how you can be perfect and able to sin at the same time. Try this in a Christian philosophy thread.

Ecc 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

Upright but not perfect.

It means without sin and pleasing to God for he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. If there was sin in the created order before Adam, which is what you must argue for death to be present, then the holy and righteous God would never have declared it to be "very good".

God, being omniscient, also saw the Fall at this time.

Of course you do. If death entered the created order through Adam's transgression then there was no death before Adam and hence no evolution.

It was Adam's potential to sin and his forthcoming sin that caused the corruption.

BTW: Why do you hold to Theistic Evolution?
Isaiah 45:12 "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

Not sure what you're geting at here..

Surely you mean "The goal of evolution" as you do not believe in creation? God's goal in creation was to glorify himself. Now how a created order of death and decay can be honouring and glorifying to God is, well, beyond me.

False dichotomy. I believe in creation but not creationism. Surely the goal is the final defeat of Satan and the creation of the new heaven and earth? The future order and how God accomplishes it is what glorifies God.

Until the 1800s there was no debate over this. Creation was only questioned when, due to enlightenment thinking, God was rejected and people sought a new way of explaining how we came to be and developed elaborate theories. Some Christians then sought to make the inerrant word of God fit in with the errant theories of men.

I beg to differ! Augustine was interpreting Genesis allegorically in the patristic period! He took the Fall literally, though. We are not changing the meaning but working out what the text must have meant given that it is inerrant and there is serious evidence for evolution.

1Timothy 6:20, 21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

'Science,' is 'knowledge,' in NIV. I don't think Paul was talking about evolution here, but gnosticism or some such thing.

Not at all. The issue is this, one either accepts the account of the inerrant inspired word of Almighty God as set forth in the Scriptures or one believes "science" and makes the inerrant inspired word of Almighty God fit in with that.

Surely Scripture is inerrant based on its purpose. What if the meaning of Genesis 1-2 was never meant to be a blow by blow account of exactly how creation happened...

I am not sure of your argument here.

In the Bible, it states clearly that the eyes of the LORD range through the whole earth. How would you respond to someone who couldn't see that these eyes were not literal eyes going through the earth, when they angrily protest that Scripture must be correct.

I was thinking earlier about the temptation of Christ. Could Christ have sinned in those temptations? If so then you would be concluding Christ was posse non peccare and hence imperfect which would contradict Scripture. Just a thought

Do you think Christ could have sinned during those temptations?

Those who uphold the Reformation doctrines of the Scripture being God's inerrant, inspired revelation to mankind and accept the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter will lie on the Creationist side of the argument. Soli Deo Gloria!!

Do you believe the verses in Job to be speaking of a literal measuring line then, used in creation?

 

[Iosias]

I think science shows us where traditional interpretations fail

So you admit that you let science interpret Scripture?

If scripture interprets scripture, which I think is a very wise approach, how does scripture interpret the six days of creation? They come up in Genesis and Exodus, but how does the rest of scripture deal with them? Are they treated literally or figuratively?

Before I begin may I recommend Louis Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation. In this he goes through all the various rules of hermenutics and which would provide invaluable help for study on all issues not simply creation.

One of the key rules is that "The language of scripture should be interpretated according to its grammatical import; and the sense of any expression, proposition, or declaration, is to be determined by the words employed." Therefore we look to see how the Hebrew word for day is used, not only in Genesis 1 but, thoughout the Old Testament. This then gives us its Scriptural meaning. There are other rules hence I suggest the book above

You may find Six Arguments for Six Days helpful.

 

[Iosias]

'Very good' and 'perfect' are different. God is better than Adam as God is not able to sin. Hence it is possible to be greater than Adam (God is greater). Therefore Adam was not perfect, as you cannot be better than perfect. Only God is perfect. I cannot see how you can be perfect and able to sin at the same time. Try this in a Christian philosophy thread.



Upright but not perfect.



God, being omniscient, also saw the Fall at this time.



It was Adam's potential to sin and his forthcoming sin that caused the corruption.



Not sure what you're geting at here..



False dichotomy. I believe in creation but not creationism. Surely the goal is the final defeat of Satan and the creation of the new heaven and earth? The future order and how God accomplishes it is what glorifies God.



I beg to differ! Augustine was interpreting Genesis allegorically in the patristic period! He took the Fall literally, though. We are not changing the meaning but working out what the text must have meant given that it is inerrant and there is serious evidence for evolution.



'Science,' is 'knowledge,' in NIV. I don't think Paul was talking about evolution here, but gnosticism or some such thing.



Surely Scripture is inerrant based on its purpose. What if the meaning of Genesis 1-2 was never meant to be a blow by blow account of exactly how creation happened...



In the Bible, it states clearly that the eyes of the LORD range through the whole earth. How would you respond to someone who couldn't see that these eyes were not literal eyes going through the earth, when they angrily protest that Scripture must be correct.



Do you think Christ could have sinned during those temptations?



Do you believe the verses in Job to be speaking of a literal measuring line then, used in creation?

I will re-ask my question

Why do you hold to Theistic Evolution?​

 

[Mallon]

What I want you to do is show where my links have stated what TEs believe in a way that is factually wrong.

Sure. Your link said "Both of the two Theistic Evolutionist views are flawed from a Christian prospective in that they don’t line up with the Genesis creation account." They are wrong on the following point: The Christian perspective of creation is that God created, NOT that He did it in any particular way. You are a Christian and you read Genesis 1 literally; I am a Christian, and I read Genesis 1 allegorically. My views still line up with the Genesis creation account because I understand that the message God was trying to convey goes beyond a simple literal reading, as is so often the case with the Bible. If God's intention was to describe how He created the universe, He could have done a much better job!
In any case, if they were honest, the quote above should read: "Both of the two Theistic Evolutionist views are flawed from a Young Earth Creationist perspective [not "prospective"] in that they don't line up with a literal reading of the Genesis creation account." There. That's better!

 

[Iosias]

Sure. Your link said "Both of the two Theistic Evolutionist views are flawed from a Christian prospective in that they don’t line up with the Genesis creation account." They are wrong on the following point: The Christian perspective of creation is that God created, NOT that He did it in any particular way.

As it makes clear, the reason why the TE view contradicts the Christian perspective is because it goes against what Scripture teaches. i.e. the order in which Scripture teaches things happened. e.g. An "example of discordance is, the Genesis account clearly says that birds were created with sea creatures on Day Five while land animals were not created until Day Six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which says that birds evolved from land animals. The Biblical account says that birds preceded land animals. The Theistic Evolutionist view says exactly the opposite."

 

[Mallon]

As it makes clear, the reason why the TE view contradicts the Christian perspective is because it goes against what Scripture teaches. i.e. the order in which Scripture teaches things happened. e.g. An "example of discordance is, the Genesis account clearly says that birds were created with sea creatures on Day Five while land animals were not created until Day Six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which says that birds evolved from land animals. The Biblical account says that birds preceded land animals. The Theistic Evolutionist view says exactly the opposite."

I wouldn't argue that this is the message God was trying to convey, though. God is interested in our salvation, and what does it matter to our salvation that God created life in a certain order or did it in a certain time? Job 38:14 says God formed the earth like stamping clay under a seal. Do you really think this is what God was trying to teach when He inspired that verse? Or do you think the meaning went beyond that simple, literal interpretation?

 

[Iosias]

I wouldn't argue that this is the message God was trying to convey, though.

Job 38:14 says God formed the earth like stamping clay under a seal. Do you really think this is what God was trying to teach when He inspired that verse? Or do you think the meaning went beyond that simple, literal interpretation?

Job 38:14 "It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."

On this Gill comments:

It is turned as clay to the seal,.... As the clay receives a different form by the impress of the seal upon it, so the earth appears in a different manner by the spring of morning light upon it; in the darkness of the night nothing of its form and beauty is to be seen; it is a mere "tohu" and "bohu", like the chaos, Gen 1:2; its rising hills, and spreading dales, and beautiful landscapes, cannot be observed with pleasure; but when the light breaks forth in the morning, it is seen in all its beauty and glory: of the change the light of the Gospel makes in men, see 2Cor 3:18;

and they stand as a garment; or things stand upon it as a garment, as Mr. Broughton renders the words; herbs, plants, and trees, unseen in the night, stand up like a vesture to the earth in the morning light; and as they are clothed themselves, they are a garment to that, which now puts on another and beautiful habit; the pastures are clothed with flocks, and the valleys covered with corn, and the whole earth with light itself, as with a garment: and as beautifully do men made light in the Lord appear; see Isa 41:10.
​

 

[Mallon]

That's a very beautiful commentary, AV1611. Dr./Rev. Denis Lamoureux presents some equally beautiful commentary concerning Genesis on his website that I linked to earlier. Theologian Dr. Meredith Kline has much the same to say in his works.

 

[HypnoToad]

I...phrased my position a touch badly.

My point is that when you look at the miracles God does, he uses the amount of miraculous power necessary to accomplish his goal and no more. The goal of creation was to create the world in which we live.

Was that the sole purpose? How do you know?

The simpler process of evolution is more in keeping with this approach than the literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1. While the debate on the validity of theistic evolution continues, the point is that if either is acceptable, theistic evolution is more in keeping with the precedent which God has set by the other miracles described in the Bible.

This is wholly subjective. I see creation being far "simpler" than evolution.

 

[JMC309]

Was that the sole purpose? How do you know?

How do you know there was another purpose? What purpose is this?

This is wholly subjective. I see creation being far "simpler" than evolution.

Until we agree on a definition of 'simple,' this is subjective too.

 

[JMC309]

Why do you hold to Theistic Evolution?

1) Evolution happens:
-Things mutate (observation).
-Things with good mutations survive better in environments of limited resources (common sense).
-Resources are limited (observation).
-mutations are passed on (observation).
=> Good mutations happen and are passed on

2) Evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

3) Scripture can be interpreted literally or allegorically.

4) If evolution is true and allegory is a possible interpretation, it makes sense that this interpretation is true.

5) Allegory demeans in no way the Genesis narrative or the authority of Scripture and Christian doctrine.

6) We already interpret scripture by science. Do you believe the sun goes round the earth? Or the world is flat? If you don't then on what grounds? None other than observation, surely! And isn't science just an extension of our observations?

 

[HypnoToad]

How do you know there was another purpose? What purpose is this?

I'm not saying that I necessarily know. But I'm also certain that it's something you can't know either.

Until we agree on a definition of 'simple,' this is subjective too.

And the whole thing being subjective leaves us still at the point that your theory is unsubstantiated.

 

[JMC309]

I'm not saying that I necessarily know. But I'm also certain that it's something you can't know either.

So you believe that there was probably some other purpose in creation which needed a greater display of power than would be necessary for evolution.

And the whole thing being subjective leaves us still at the point that your theory is unsubstantiated.

What did you mean by simple?

 

[theFijian]

What then does God reveal to us as to how he created the heavens and the earth and all that therein is? Simple - He spake and it was created by the power of his word!

Yes we know that it was by the power of his Word (Christ), but we are not told in what manner things came into being. We know the agent of Creation, but not the method of creation.

 

[Assyrian]

So you admit that you let science interpret Scripture?

No of course not. How can science interpret scripture? It does not know the mind of God as the Spirit of God in us does. Of course it can point out some of the times when we get the meaning of scripture wrong. Like when the church believed the bible taught geocentrism.

Science does interpret Genesis, it does not tell us whether it is an allegory, a framework, or it was meant as day age. It can tell us the young earth creationism is wrong becasue the world is much older than that.

Before I begin may I recommend Louis Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation. In this he goes through all the various rules of hermenutics and which would provide invaluable help for study on all issues not simply creation.

One of the key rules is that "The language of scripture should be interpretated according to its grammatical import; and the sense of any expression, proposition, or declaration, is to be determined by the words employed." Therefore we look to see how the Hebrew word for day is used, not only in Genesis 1 but, thoughout the Old Testament. This then gives us its Scriptural meaning. There are other rules hence I suggest the book above

You may find Six Arguments for Six Days helpful.

You mean like the way 'day' is used in three or four different ways in just the first two chapters, including Gen 2:4 where the whole of creation is described as happening in a single 'day', or the way Moses writes a psalm talking about creation and goes on to describe what a day is in God's sight? Or the way biblical calendar days simply don't fit the days in Genesis? Or the way the only references that actually talk of God creating the world in six days are in the middle of a metaphor describing God as a weary labourer who is refreshed after a days rest? And the fact that these passage aren't actually teaching about creation but are meant as an illustration of Sabbath observance?

As it makes clear, the reason why the TE view contradicts the Christian perspective is because it goes against what Scripture teaches. i.e. the order in which Scripture teaches things happened. e.g. An "example of discordance is, the Genesis account clearly says that birds were created with sea creatures on Day Five while land animals were not created until Day Six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which says that birds evolved from land animals. The Biblical account says that birds preceded land animals. The Theistic Evolutionist view says exactly the opposite."

That is assuming the what Genesis 1 it teaching us is the chronological order in which things happened. But if that was the point of chapter 1, why does God go in chapter 2 and contradict that order?

You mention birds being created on day five before day six, this was when animals and man were created. Yet in Genesis 2, God forms birds along with animals, after he creates man. Could it be that the chronological order is not the point Genesis is trying to teach us?

 

[shernren]

As it makes clear, the reason why the TE view contradicts the Christian perspective is because it goes against what Scripture teaches. i.e. the order in which Scripture teaches things happened. e.g. An "example of discordance is, the Genesis account clearly says that birds were created with sea creatures on Day Five while land animals were not created until Day Six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which says that birds evolved from land animals. The Biblical account says that birds preceded land animals. The Theistic Evolutionist view says exactly the opposite."

When did God create ostriches?

And how many were on the Ark?