Scripture & Theistic Evolution

OK - after reading a number of discussions on the validity of theistic evolution, they all tend to focus on science says this or science says that - which is fine. But I need to first understand the scriptural basis for theistic evol.
Please bear with me - or direct me to another link if this has already been hashed out.

My question is:
How is theistic evolution presented based on the scriptures?

I understand that from this point of view some scripture is to be taken as non-literal, I'm just not sure how much is taken this way and how much is to be treated as literal.

Also will ask for clarification (from this point of view) of
- vegetarian? (Gen 1:29)
- physical human death before the fall? (Gen 3:19b).
Also how is Adam / Eve handled with this point of view (based on scripture).

There are a few other questions, but this may be enough for now.

Thanks for you time and patience.

I think in a large sense theistic evolution is not based on scripture. It is based on what scientific observation says about the world and then how scripture applies to those observations.

In a sense, theistic evolution takes science and looks at creation with certain scientific observations in mind, rather than looking at science with a certain interpretation of scripture in mind.

__________________

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3

surely there is some scriptural basis - I find it hard to understand that Christians would rather side with science and argue from that view, rather than side with scripture and go from there. Especially since science itself is far from being all-knowing.
Then again, maybe its the difference between seeing the bible as subject to errors or inerrant.

Basically most theistic evolutionists see science as the study of gods creation, so when sound science contradicts their interpretation of the bible, they change their interpretation.

Also I can answer one of your points, most see adams death as a spiritual one and not a physical one, so death was around before the fall.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Theistic evolutionists accept evolution for the same dreadful non-Scriptural reasons that they accept heliocentricity and the germ theory of disease - not because Scripture teaches them - it doesn't - but because the scientific evidence compels that conclusion. Why should evolution be different from quantum physics and require a scriptural basis?

In other words, I don't understand why you should expect the existence of what you are asking for.

In other other words, as The Barbarian used to say, it's between the verses on the exclusion principle and the verses on Boyle's Law.

Moving on to your specific points:

This says "neither shalt thou eat meat" where exactly?

God says to Adam that if he eats the fruit he will die the same day. The same day he eats it, he is estranged from God and cut off from His presence, but he does not die physically. It seems to me, therefore, that this is the death to which the verse refers. This correlates well with Christian theology that sees us as being dead in our sins, and passing from death to life at baptism.

They are types of us. Genesis 3 is not about what some putative ancestor did thousands of years ago and for which God inexplicable holds me responsible; it is about what humans do, and what they are like. What it is saying is "this is the problem with people - if you put them in paradise, with everything they need, and just give them one prohibition, they'll do the one prohibited thing as soon as your back is turned."

Anyone with kids will concur.

Occasionally people write books with titles like "Who was Adam?", correlating things in Genesis with various prehistoric human events, such as the invention of agriculture. A theological answer involves merely looking in a mirror.

__________________
I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race
Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face
I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed
But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead

I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears
I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun

Evolution starts with atheistic presuppositions and (some) theists mangle the biblical text in an effort to make it fit fasionable mythology.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

__________________
If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.

Can you list these 'atheistic' presuppositions for us? What 'atheistic' presuppositions did Darwin include in Origin of a Species?

__________________

Lets not forget to put that quote in context,
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html

Its also important to note the difference between literal meanings and literal truths.

Take the Chronicles of Narnia for example. C.S. Lewis ment for Aslan to be a literal lion. However, the truth of the matter is that Aslan was a fictional symbol of Jesus. If Fundementalist were to read th Chronicles of Narnia literally I bet they would argue that Aslan is a lion and that the stories say literally that he is a lion and never makes a mention that he is really the symbol for a man, thus concluding that he is not a symbol but a lion and miss the entire point of Aslan.

Thus, whether literary scholars decided that when C.S. lewis wrote "lion" that he ment "lion" doesn't change the fact that this lion was a symbol.

Just the same, whether hebrew scholars decide that when "day" is written it means "day" doesn't mean that day couldn't be a symbol and part of a non historic story.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

I would like to clear up a small little misunderstanding that has been slowly spreading. It has to do with "atheistic preconcieved ideas" regarding evolution.

Evolution, as a thoery, has nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with evolution. Most people tend to equate them together, but this is because the theory of evolution allows us to explain the vast amount of species in the world through totally naturalistic (read: scientific) means. Evolution made atheism, as a philosophy, scientifically acceptable. But, the theories of evoltuion itself have nothing to do with God, either in the existance of or absence of one. Evolution is only a scientific throery, and as such, should be able to fit fine with any perticular group of people, the same way they accpet the theory of gravity, and sun centered Galaxy theory.

What most people do not know is that Darwin, earlierer in his career, thought evoltuion to be impossible. (Contrary to popular belief, evolution has been around since before the time of Darwin, he is just given credit for it because of his discovery of Natural Selection). Darwin was a creationist, not an atheist. IN fact, again contrary to what others would have you to believe, Darwin never became an atheist in his life. It is true he became an Agnostic, but there is a subtle distinction between the two.

So evoltuion, in the same way as in the theory of gravity, has nothing to do with God. It is only a theory. Because of this, I have trouble understanding why so many people take offence to it, and treat it like it is a vulgar word. It is only a sceintific theory, first and foremost.

Hope that this helps. Have fun and keep learning Y'ALL.