Bible vs. human evolution

[UpperEschelon]

A couple of corrections:

I have provided an interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives as well as the rest of the pre-Abraham chapters of Genesis, which I believe is more soundly exegeted than the creationist interpretation.

Chapter 2 absolutely and clearly does indicate chronology as I have already illustrated.

You are not obsessing about contradictions, because you are choosing to pretend that they don't exist. I am not obsessing about them; I am merely using them as a tool to determine proper exegesis of the passages in question.

You may not be asserting that one or the other narratives is allegorical, because you are denying that which is clear from the text.





Truth is not always synonymous with historical accuracy. When we realize this, it is not all that difficult to understand how Genesis and modern science might both be true.

If we both concur in chapter two not being restricted to a rigid literary chronology (as you said) then there are no contradictions, the two chapters can be reconciled. In that case, why is there even a need for me to deny that which is clear from the text? More importantly, if you want to claim chapter two is allegorical, in what sense and at what parts?

 

[Assyrian]

I'll keep it brief and to two points. Helper =/= life mate.

True, but that is what the passage is about, God finding a wife for Adam. God was not taken by surprise with how well they got on, that was his plan.

And I am not afraid of biblical metaphors,

You said:

it would be essentially like concluding "it didn't really happen this way at all" and hence, one could easily implement whatever they want into the narratives. No thanks.
​

I don't see the problem with concluding "it didn't really happen this way at all" that is how parables work. There isn't really going to be a seven headed beast like an apocalyptic Godzilla. Jesus wasn't actually a shepherd, or a grape vine. But that is more mental block than fear, rejecting the idea of Genesis being a metaphor because you know, of course, it is literal. The fear I was talking about is the idea you can read anything you want into it if it is a metaphor, I have come across it a lot from creationists. I don't think it is true because the bible tells us what much of the metaphor in Genesis means, and we have the counsel of scripture to keep us from reading anything we want into it. Actually I think the allegorical interpretations of Genesis in scripture goes a lot further than I would take it, Paul's use of Adam and Eve as an allegory of Christ and the church 2Cor 11:2&3. But I don't see worry that metaphor can mean anything as a legitimate reason to reject it when God has chose to speak to us in parables metaphor and allegories.

I simply debate for the sake of refining what I know on the topic, thanks for being a part of the process.

Cheers

 

[UpperEschelon]

True, but that is what the passage is about, God finding a wife for Adam. God was not taken by surprise with how well they got on, that was his plan.

You said:

it would be essentially like concluding "it didn't really happen this way at all" and hence, one could easily implement whatever they want into the narratives. No thanks.
​

I don't see the problem with concluding "it didn't really happen this way at all" that is how parables work. There isn't really going to be a seven headed beast like an apocalyptic Godzilla. Jesus wasn't actually a shepherd, or a grape vine. But that is more mental block than fear, rejecting the idea of Genesis being a metaphor because you know, of course, it is literal. The fear I was talking about is the idea you can read anything you want into it if it is a metaphor, I have come across it a lot from creationists. I don't think it is true because the bible tells us what much of the metaphor in Genesis means, and we have the counsel of scripture to keep us from reading anything we want into it. Actually I think the allegorical interpretations of Genesis in scripture goes a lot further than I would take it, Paul's use of Adam and Eve as an allegory of Christ and the church 2Cor 11:2&3. But I don't see worry that metaphor can mean anything as a legitimate reason to reject it when God has chose to speak to us in parables metaphor and allegories.

Cheers

I would honestly still have a few concerns. In terms of parables, yes they were stories but the whole purpose of parables is that they ultimately conveyed literal truths, or else Jesus wouldn't have used them. When it comes to genesis, what would we imply by claiming the narratives are completely allegorical. That there wasn't 7 days/phases of creation? That God didn't create in that order? That the following events didn't unfold like how the bible entails they did? Does it even make sense to conclude they are just fully, 100% allegorical? Of course there are allegories in the narratives, but there is also literalism as well. Like I mentioned, God making Eve from a rib of Adam, God cursing the snake to "slither on its belly", the trees and fruit in the garden as well as the location of the garden itself (if it wasn't real then why would God have expressed fear for humans eating from the tree of life?). Get where I am coming from?

 

[dies-l]

If we both concur in chapter two not being restricted to a rigid literary chronology (as you said) then there are no contradictions, the two chapters can be reconciled.

Where did you get the idea that I believed that? I said exactly the opposite. I even looked back to make sure that I didn't inadvertently put a stray "not" in the sentence (as I have accidentally done before).

In that case, why is there even a need for me to deny that which is clear from the text? More importantly, if you want to claim chapter two is allegorical, in what sense and at what parts?

I think we've been over this enough already. But, here is my position in short: from my reading of Scripture, there is nothing to indicate that anything prior to the call of Abraham is purely historical or that it should be read that way. Call it fiction, call it allegory, call it symbolism, call it what you will, the value of these stories is not in their historical accuracy, but in what they teach us about the nature of mankind. They are pre-historical accounts that explain why we are in the mess we are in even though God is the God that He is.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Chapter 2 absolutely and clearly does indicate chronology as I have already illustrated.

I misread what you had said, you had said the opposite, that it "does" indicate chronology. Your "illustrations" was based on a copy/paste portion of chapter two and claims to there being causal words like "and then" or "next" which indicate chronology, but there clearly are not any such words or phrases there. I will repost something I placed in another thread...

__________________________________________________________

Next I want to address this issue of "contradictions" in Chapters 1 and 2. I can state with all honesty that after having studied these chapters, there doesn't seem to be any contradictions whatsoever between the two.

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Planet earth before day 3, plain and simple.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

“And”, meaning in addition, the LORD God formed man. No chronology implied; this could happen any time in reference to the previous portion and is obviously at some point after. (Day 6)

The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.

No conjunctions or causal phrases used whatsoever; God is simply calling attention to the “garden eastward of Eden” He planted. Again, no chronology is implied. (Simply a reference to what the Lord accomplished on Day 3)

And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates. Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

By this time the creation process would essentially be finished, man is simply placed inside Eden.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

God’s intention here was to make a helper comparable to Adam, hence it is at this point he brought every beast of the field and every bird of the air to Adam. Making Adam a helper does not imply that at this specific point is when animals were created. On the contrary, if we are to consider chapter 1 and understand that scripture does not contradict itself, then we are simply to conclude God was calling attention to the creatures he had formed at which point he simply brought them to Adam to name, and hence he would have his helpers.

Chapter two is simply a non-chronological compliment of chapter one which simply fills in details at specific points. This is what seems clear to me. Claiming that one or both of these detailed accounts of creation are allegorical does not reconcile anything but completely disjoints everything. Would one purposely try to feign some sort of symbolic “confusion” so they can run wild with whatever ideas they want to implement here? This is what it seems to me...Also, the importance of Chapter 2 as a fill in chapter is under scored and completed with the creation of Eve, after God had "realized" that all the creatures of earth in a sense "didn't measure up". All it would tell us is that Adam simply named the creatures of earth before Eve was created, but this does not contradict the creation days narrative of Chapter 1 in any way.

So Yes, there are contradictions if your force a chronology onto chapter two for every single thing that takes place. But it is clear that there are no causal links proving any sort of chronology whatsoever. I find it somewhat amusing that those who are trying to pass off the genesis accounts as allegorical require a rigidly chronological literalism of chapter two in order to fabricate "contradictions" so that they could do so. Is it just me...?
__________________________________________________________

As a side note, an attribute of God is omnipresence, meaning forever past, forever present, forever future.

I would be inclined to say that you are placing your preferred theological disposition ahead of the proper interpretation of the text. When we interpret text, the ultimate conclusion should be that the texts are reconciled and compliment each other, not contradict each other (whether it is allegorical or not). If there are perceived contradictions, it usually means error in interpretation. Furthermore, I'd also say it is important to know what we imply by claiming texts to contain allegories. It is not so that we would simply pass the text off as mythical and untrue, but that we would understand the truths that they are representing. If the latter wouldn't be the case, than Jesus wasted a lot of time sharing all those parables. Also, whether or not you want to perceive contradictions in chapter two does not infringe on someone's view of the narratives being historical or not. You're just trying to throw extra weight onto your interpretation by claiming contradictions.

Let me point out one last thing. You are already predisposed to view the narratives as purely allegorical and non-historical. If they are allegorical, then chronology becomes purely relative, hence just how good is your opinion on these "contradictions" if your opinion has already been colored to view contradictions according to your preferred theology which revolves around viewing them chronologically? It would be circular logic, you want to hold to a theology which requires you to view contradictions. You want to view contradictions so you can justify your preferred theology.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Rather than go back and forth, I guess it would be best at this point to put it at rest. To be honest, the debating I have done here has greatly widened my understanding on the topic.

However, I simply cannot forget the convictions I hold. I truly believe scripture would not contradict itself, whether if it is in literal or allegorical form.

 

[Assyrian]

I would honestly still have a few concerns. In terms of parables, yes they were stories but the whole purpose of parables is that they ultimately conveyed literal truths, or else Jesus wouldn't have used them.

Probably best not to use the word 'literal' here, literal refers to the way the truth is described, not the truth itself. Matt 20:18 "See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day." This is a literal description of Christ death and resurrection. Christ's death and resurrection is a real event, but it is the description that is 'literal truth'. On the other hand the parable of the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep is not 'literal truth', it is completely metaphorical, Jesus never was a shepherd, he didn't die for sheep, the events described in the parable simply did not happen. What they symbolise happened, the events described in the parable did not. The parable is true, just not literally true. The metaphor describes the same reality as the literal statement in Matt 20.

When it comes to genesis, what would we imply by claiming the narratives are completely allegorical.

No more than saying the Godd Shepherd is completely metaphorical.

That there wasn't 7 days/phases of creation? That God didn't create in that order?

You can of course line the days of creation with earth's geological eras as OEC Hugh Ross does, but I am not so sure that is the point. At least, no one in the bible drew that meaning from it, that God was teaching the vital doctrine of the order of creation. Instead what the bible draws from it is a lesson in Sabbath observance, which in turn is a highly allegorical picture of the gospel and the rest we have in Christ Col 2:16&17, Heb 3&4. It was also God identifying with child labourers and foreign workers toiling out in the fields. Exodus 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'" Notice that word refreshed, getting your breath back, firstly it can't be speaking literally, because God was not a worn out by his labour of creation and then refreshed after a day's rest. The word is very rare in the OT, but it occurred a few chapters before in another description of the Sabbath. Exodus 23:12 "Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed. Of course God's greatest identification with the weary and downtrodden of the world came in the cross when Jesus bore our sorrows, bringing us back to that picture of the God's seventh day rest as our rest in Christ.

That the following events didn't unfold like how the bible entails they did?

Unfold like in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? If the order of creation was literal or even, important, the bible would not give two completely different orders of events.

Does it even make sense to conclude they are just fully, 100% allegorical? Of course there are allegories in the narratives, but there is also literalism as well. Like I mentioned, God making Eve from a rib of Adam, God cursing the snake to "slither on its belly", the trees and fruit in the garden as well as the location of the garden itself (if it wasn't real then why would God have expressed fear for humans eating from the tree of life?). Get where I am coming from?

I was wondering about adding the last one to my list, could God really have so little control of everlasting life, that if Adam had eaten from the tree of life, he would have lived forever and God could have done nothing about it? I said there were theological problems with a literal tree of life, this is another of them. As you know the serpent was really a picture of Satan deceiving the world. Does Satan slither on his belly and eat dust all the days of his life? Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." The bible is using the metaphor of a snake to describe God casting the Cherub of Eden from heaven to the earth for deceiving the human race (c.f. Ezek 28).

 

[hardihood]

Why do you believe man had to lack intelligence at some point. Is it because, he did not discover iron or cemet until some time later? He had to have intelligence in order to discover these things. And, why did you believe there was no evolution if man did not come from other creatures? God said " let the waters bring forth life and let the ground bring forth life. That is evolution, it is just man was made separately from other creatures.

 

[Assyrian]

Why do you believe man had to lack intelligence at some point.

You can't really work out intelligence levels from brain size, however the further back we trace our ancestors, the smaller the cranial capacity and the more similar their features to our cousins the chimps. It is reasonable to assume that their intelligence levels will start to approach that of chimps the closer we get to our common ancestor, but the only way to estimate their actually intelligence is through the tools and art they left behind.

Is it because, he did not discover iron or cemet until some time later? He had to have intelligence in order to discover these things.

True, but you had anatomically modern humans for over a hundred thousand years by the time cement and iron were discovered.

And, why did you believe there was no evolution if man did not come from other creatures? God said " let the waters bring forth life and let the ground bring forth life. That is evolution, it is just man was made separately from other creatures.

The evidence for evolution of other life does not depend on the evidence for human evolution. In fact when Darwin first wrote about evolution in the Origin of Species, it was about how animal species and plants evolved, not humans. If we had no evidence for our evolution, no fossil hominids, no anatomical similarities to the great apes, if we did not share most of our DNA with chimps, the evidence that other species evolved from common ancestors would still be as strong. But the fact is, we do have all this evidence for human evolution, and that is why it is accepted.

Which raises the question are there other possible explanations for why Genesis would describe God forming man from dust. In fact this is a very common description in scripture. Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay. Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honoured use and another for dishonourable use? 2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. The bible may call God a potter and say he formed me from clay, but it is not speaking literally, it does not mean I didn't have a biological origin involving my mum and dad. It means that alongside all the biology, we also see the sovereign plan and purpose of God for my existence. Which raises the question, with all these examples in the bible of God forming people and nations from clay, why Genesis is the only time people take this picture literally? And if science shows us the human race had a normal biological origin, that we evolved like every other species, doesn't it make more sense that Genesis is one more potter metaphor and isn't actually speaking literally?

 

[TheyShallExpel]

Of course, Genesis isn't a literal narrative. It is allegorical. It tells us that God created, but not how.

It does tell us how... (have the decency to read the original question before posting worldview fabrications)
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "
Atheists and unbelieving believers use the argument of allegory because the alternative is anathema to them. The creation truth HAS NOT and IS NOT a "theory" - you will also not find anyone saying it is because, although atheists & evolutionists have traded the truth for a lie they are without excuse and are convicted by the truth and that is why they will not and cannot bring themselves to call it a theory.

 

[coolguybrad]

It does tell us how... (have the decency to read the original question before posting worldview fabrications)
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "
Atheists and unbelieving believers use the argument of allegory because the alternative is anathema to them. The creation truth HAS NOT and IS NOT a "theory" - you will also not find anyone saying it is because, although atheists & evolutionists have traded the truth for a lie they are without excuse and are convicted by the truth and that is why they will not and cannot bring themselves to call it a theory.

Its faith. No proof, no evidence, just faith.

 

[TheyShallExpel]

The evidence for evolution of other life does not depend on the evidence for human evolution. In fact when Darwin first wrote about evolution in the Origin of Species, it was about how animal species and plants evolved, not humans. If we had no evidence for our evolution, no fossil hominids, no anatomical similarities to the great apes, if we did not share most of our DNA with chimps, the evidence that other species evolved from common ancestors would still be as strong. But the fact is, we do have all this evidence for human evolution, and that is why it is accepted.
Which raises the question are there other possible explanations for why Genesis would describe God forming man from dust. In fact this is a very common description in scripture. Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay. Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honoured use and another for dishonourable use? 2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. The bible may call God a potter and say he formed me from clay, but it is not speaking literally, it does not mean I didn't have a biological origin involving my mum and dad. It means that alongside all the biology, we also see the sovereign plan and purpose of God for my existence. Which raises the question, with all these examples in the bible of God forming people and nations from clay, why Genesis is the only time people take this picture literally?
And if science shows us the human race had a normal biological origin, that we evolved like every other species, doesn't it make more sense that Genesis is one more potter metaphor and isn't actually speaking literally?

Evolution is not accepted. It is a forced western worldview. Only 39% of americans believe in evolution and another 78% of that % had a tertiary education. This indicates that the longer we are in the secular humanist education system the more "faith" we have in evolution.
We also DO NOT have a similar DNA to the chimps... as you say. Another evolutionist falsehood. The DNA produces protein and sugars which then decide everything else. (this is as simple as I can make it) A protein cannot form without the sugar and vice-versa. I would appreciate ANY evolutionist explaining which came first? If I use the same stripping of information as the evolutionist with a banana, I would end up with about 52% of me and the banana having the same DNA. I have as yet not heard the evolutionists arguing that one though. Kinda like Darwin discussing the evolution of the eye... "We have eyes in our heads so it must have evolved". How much "faith" does that take?
To be an evolutionist you have to throw out and refute the second law of thermodynamics (kinda like deciding not to believe in gravity) because if everything is subject to this law (and everything is) then how do we get a human/plant/insect etc. out of a single "spontaneous" cell? If I have the letter "A" I cannot make the word "bee" from the letter. Where did the extra information come from?
When Paul wrote and discussed evolution with the Greeks in Romans 1 he explained the outcome of believing in evolution and trading the truth for a lie... Read Romans 1 so that you too can stop thinking in futility.

 

[TheyShallExpel]

Its faith. No proof, no evidence, just faith.

It isn't based on faith - The elephant in the scientific room is that everything they try refute always leads them to the same conclusion - we and everything in this universe MUST have been created "rapidly" and together. The problem is funding - if a "serious" scientist published their actual findings and not the worldview findings funding disappears. Same as the debunked "big bang". It is like believing that if I throw a stick of dynamite at a a piece of wood it will explode into the Taj Mahal. Now that takes faith!

 

[coolguybrad]

It isn't based on faith - The elephant in the scientific room is that everything they try refute always leads them to the same conclusion - we and everything in this universe MUST have been created "rapidly" and together. The problem is funding - if a "serious" scientist published their actual findings and not the worldview findings funding disappears. Same as the debunked "big bang". It is like believing that if I throw a stick of dynamite at a a piece of wood it will explode into the Taj Mahal. Now that takes faith!

I was talking about scripture.

Are you actually saying God isn't powerful enough to bust through the mass conspiracy called the scientific community? The truth when it comes to God would blast away any science. Maybe its not God's intent to get involved in scientific matters?

 

[TheyShallExpel]

I was talking about scripture.

Are you actually saying God isn't powerful enough to bust through the mass conspiracy called the scientific community? The truth when it comes to God would blast away any science. Maybe its not God's intent to get involved in scientific matters?

Fair enough...
I believe nothing is impossible for God, so no, that is not what I am actually saying, but point well taken. Thanks

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution is not accepted. It is a forced western worldview. Only 39% of americans believe in evolution and another 78% of that % had a tertiary education.

Fortunately it isn't the general population who gets to decide what is good science and what isn't, it is scientists working in those sciences, who know what the evidence is and understand it.

The USA isn't the best example, it is way down there with Turkey when it comes to public acceptance of evolution.

Ireland is what, 68% or something like that?

This indicates that the longer we are in the secular humanist education system the more "faith" we have in evolution.

Or the better educated people are, the better they are at evaluating the evidence.

We also DO NOT have a similar DNA to the chimps... as you say. Another evolutionist falsehood. The DNA produces protein and sugars which then decide everything else.

How do proteins and sugars change how similar chimp and ape DNA is? If you want a good overview of the question from a creationist have a look at Todd Wood's blog Todd's Blog: Chimp genome again

(this is as simple as I can make it) A protein cannot form without the sugar and vice-versa. I would appreciate ANY evolutionist explaining which came first?

You are talking about a process that arose in the some of the earliest forms of life on earth, which we have no information about and no fossil evidence, not that fossils preserve biochemical processes anyway. So you are trying to use as evidence against evolution something we would not know about whether evolution is true or not. Not that great an argument.

If I use the same stripping of information as the evolutionist with a banana, I would end up with about 52% of me and the banana having the same DNA. I have as yet not heard the evolutionists arguing that one though.

Stripping of information?

Kinda like Darwin discussing the evolution of the eye... "We have eyes in our heads so it must have evolved". How much "faith" does that take?

Is that a direct quote from Darwin? It does not sound like him.

To be an evolutionist you have to throw out and refute the second law of thermodynamics (kinda like deciding not to believe in gravity) because if everything is subject to this law (and everything is) then how do we get a human/plant/insect etc. out of a single "spontaneous" cell?

Does a snowflake contradict the second law of thermodynamics? They spontaneously organise themselves into all sorts of marvelous and complicated shapes. Don't believe what creationist websites tell you about the second law of thermodynamics. It does not contradict evolution.

If I have the letter "A" I cannot make the word "bee" from the letter. Where did the extra information come from?

You tell me. You were born with about 120 to 180 single point mutations, letters in you DNA code that are different from either of your parents, AAGCTTA instead of AAGCCTA for example. Every one of us was born with these pieces of new genetic code. Is this extra information? Is that a problem?

When Paul wrote and discussed evolution with the Greeks in Romans 1 he explained the outcome of believing in evolution and trading the truth for a lie... Read Romans 1 so that you too can stop thinking in futility.

Speaking of reading Romans, I suggest you need to read it again and see if Paul is actually writing about evolution. Perhaps you read it and think ' oh that really applies to evolution', it doesn't mean it is what he talking about. Have a look at what Paul is actually saying rather than what it means to you.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It is like believing that if I throw a stick of dynamite at a a piece of wood it will explode into the Taj Mahal. Now that takes faith!

It isn't at all, but I suppose Taj Mahal Dynamite is more creative sounding than Tornado in a Junkyard.

 

[Jazer]

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "

Hmm, no common ancestor, no evolution, no earlier/primitive humanoid forms. Yet another contradiction, I fail to see anything else.

Opinions?

Maybe you need to study your basic science book first and then you will understand the Bible. Look at it this way: the "dust of the ground" talks about the basic elements or the building blocks of life. Evolution theory (Simmon Conway Morris) tells us that these basic building blocks can only assemble themselves or fit together in a limited way. As far as the "breath of life" and the "living being", these are spiritual terms. They talk about just what it is that makes Adam and Eve different from whoever or whatever was around before them. You have a lot to learn and a lot to study before you can come even close to beginning to understanding this very short passage. God could have taken a man that evolved from a "common ancestor" and breathed the breath of life into him. God made Adam a spiritual being as compared to a common animal or brute beast. IT would take a whole book or even maybe a whole library to really understand what this short passage is talking about. At least your onto something, because evolution theory is a part of it.

 

[Jazer]

Fortunately it isn't the general population who gets to decide what is good science and what isn't, it is scientists working in those sciences, who know what the evidence is and understand it.

Actually, it is the Bible that determines what is good science. If it agrees with the Bible, it is good. If it contradicts the Bible, it is bad science. The problem is that so many people try to use a understanding of the Bible based on 100 year old outdated science. As Science learns and discovers more and more, then that helps us to better understand the Bible and the message God has for us.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Maybe you need to study your basic science book first and then you will understand the Bible.

Fail I know a good deal about science, as I am a student of the sciences. Science books are never pre-requisites to studying and understanding scripture.

At least your onto something, because evolution theory is a part of it.

Mankind came into existence carrying the image of God --> Scripture.
According to evolution, mankind was already in existence for millions of years, hailing from primitive, debased humanoids who possessd no intellect or reason, or any of the related capacities - spirituality.

To believe it fits perfectly is folly, because it does not, far from it.