Evolution vs. Theology

[Achilles6129]

Who wins? How to theistic evolutionists reconcile theology with evolution? What about the Scriptures?

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

What about the Scriptures?

Well, they are correct of course, the very word of God.

How to theistic evolutionists reconcile theology with evolution?

The same way you reconcile theology with a spherical earth - through a reasonable interpretation of scripture.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Who wins? How to theistic evolutionists reconcile theology with evolution? What about the Scriptures?

There's really no need to reconcile anything, evolution as science is defined as 'the change of alleles in populations over time', which is perfectly consistent with Creation. What I think you mean by 'evolution' is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, that is called Darwinism.

As far as I can tell Theistic Evolutionists ignore theology and their sole interest in the Scriptures is that Genesis not be read literally. On rare occasions there will be a Theistic Evolutionist who makes a serious effort to affirm Christian theism and the Scriptures as redemptive history. The times I've seen this I can count on one hand and I've been at this for a while.

To be fair, taking the Genesis account as poetic prose with no bearing on natural history could produce a sound exposition and fairly consistent hermeneutic pattern. That's why I've always been puzzled that they almost never so much as make the effort. I seriously considered a Theistic Evolutionist position for a while and reconciling theology and the testimony of Scripture really wouldn't be that hard. It wouldn't be that is, if you were willing to make a serious effort at, something other than, attacking the views of Creationists.

I could do it, no problem. I honestly don't know why they don't but to date I've yet to see a serious attempt at it by more then a couple of Theistic Evolutionists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Lopez 15721]

What aspect of theology are you questioning? What scripture, perhaps other than the beginning of Genesis are you talking about?

 

[Achilles6129]

Achilles wrote:


Well, they are correct of course, the very word of God.

Then I suppose that God was telling the truth in the Scriptures.

The same way you reconcile theology with a spherical earth - through a reasonable interpretation of scripture.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Isa. 40:22 talks about a spherical earth. There is no reconciliation necessary because the Bible never speaks of a flat earth.

What I think you mean by 'evolution' is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, that is called Darwinism.

Of course.

To be fair, taking the Genesis account as poetic prose with no bearing on natural history could produce a sound exposition and fairly consistent hermeneutic pattern.

I don't agree. Genesis is not written as poetry like the Psalms or Job. Also, there are too many problems for theistic evolutionists to overcome such as the global flood, the tower of Babel, etc.

That's why I've always been puzzled that they almost never so much as make the effort. I seriously considered a Theistic Evolutionist position for a while and reconciling theology and the testimony of Scripture really wouldn't be that hard. It wouldn't be that is, if you were willing to make a serious effort at, something other than, attacking the views of Creationists.

They have made a strenuous effort.

What aspect of theology are you questioning? What scripture, perhaps other than the beginning of Genesis are you talking about?

Theology:

1) YHWH is the God of life but evolution requires that he create through death. Satan is mentioned as the god of death in Scripture (Heb. 2:14).

2) YHWH creates an imperfect world

Scripture:

1) Six day creation account

2) Long ages of individuals in Genesis

3) Global flood of Noah

4) Tower of Babel

5) Death/cancer before the fall

6) Carnivorous animal activity before the fall

7) Various statements in the NT that indicate that the Genesis account is historical (e.g., Christ, Paul, Peter, etc.).

8) Eisegesis (reading evolution into Scripture)

9) Ignoring statements about tampering with the word of God, etc.

 

[theFijian]

Who wins? How to theistic evolutionists reconcile theology with evolution? What about the Scriptures?

Both win! Once mechanistic literalism is discarded a rich seam of theology opens up when we begin to approach the scriptures in the literary sense in which they were written, it was written in the typology of its time and must be approached carefully. There are problems to be overcome once you ditch literalism for sure, but climbing that hill only makes the view from the top all more rewarding.

 

[Achilles6129]

Both win! Once mechanistic literalism is discarded a rich seam of theology opens up when we begin to approach the scriptures in the literary sense in which they were written, it was written in the typology of its time and must be approached carefully. There are problems to be overcome once you ditch literalism for sure, but climbing that hill only makes the view from the top all more rewarding.

Would you like to address some of the problems I listed?

 

[mark kennedy]

To be fair, taking the Genesis account as poetic prose with no bearing on natural history could produce a sound exposition and fairly consistent hermeneutic pattern.

I don't agree. Genesis is not written as poetry like the Psalms or Job. Also, there are too many problems for theistic evolutionists to overcome such as the global flood, the tower of Babel, etc.

That's true as far as it goes, it's an historical narrative but that doesn't mean it's not a poetic writing style. By poetic I mean things like parallelism, in the account of the creation of Adam and Eve there are three statements of the same thing, the creation of Adam and Eve. This is a Hebrew way of emphasizing a central point, the historicity of the event is in no way negated by looking at the literary style. However, if they wanted to take the account figuratively I don't think I would have a problem with it but only if the hermeneutic principles were sound. I could do it but I've yet to see a serious substantive effort on their part.

Unlike the creation and fall of man the global flood and tower of Babel are not inextricably linked to essential, foundational Christian theism. There has to be a hermeneutic principle and the whole problem with Theistic Evolutionists is that they really don't have one.

They have made a strenuous effort.

Sounds like you must know something I don't. I've debated them endlessly, including a formal debate with Papias on Catholic theology and creation.

Does the Roman Catholic Church Condemn Theistic Evolution?

As well as shernren from a Protestant point of view:

Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

I didn't see a vigorous attempt at a substantive theological argument, what I seen were fallacious, anecdotal evidences Darwinians are famous for. I argued the Creation Evolution controversy on strictly evidential grounds for years before settling into the Origins Theology aspect. I have yet to see a serious theological argument for their worldview and as far as I can tell, it is not discernibly different from your average Darwinian.

Never mind the Genesis accounts, I'm still trying to figure out where they stand on the New Testament witness. There is Romans 5, Luke's genealogy and a an assortment of other times in the New Testament where Creation and original sin are taught emphatically. Darwinism is a rejection of miracles, pure and simple which is why the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism are the key issue.

If they are as vigorous in defending their views theologically, as you seem to think, then ask them about the New Testament witness. No self respecting Darwinian would ever admit to a miracle and certainly would never defend one as historically verifiable. It's been my experience that they are ambiguous and quick to change the subject. Don't take my word for it, ask them for yourself. What I expect you will find is that you would have better luck chasing ghosts in the fog then nailing one of them down to a substantive theological premise.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[theFijian]

Would you like to address some of the problems I listed?

Which problem would you like to address first? Like I said, discard mechanistic literalism and, while there will still be theological problems to be overcome, at least you'll be dealing with the right problems.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which problem would you like to address first? Like I said, discard mechanistic literalism and, while there will still be theological problems to be overcome, at least you'll be dealing with the right problems.

I think you mean the literal interpretation of an historical narrative since there is no such thing as literalism. In an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred no matter what the subject matter, it was written to be taken literally. The only way you don't is if there is some indication of figurative literary device, usually indicated by a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context.

BTW Achilles6129, notice the operative word is 'discard'. There is no positive argument, inference or point of reference to indicate a theological or hermeneutic principle. I rest my case.

 

[theFijian]

I think you mean the literal interpretation of an historical narrative since there is no such thing as literalism. In an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred no matter what the subject matter, it was written to be taken literally. The only way you don't is if there is some indication of figurative literary device, usually indicated by a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context.

BTW Achilles6129, notice the operative word is 'discard'. There is no positive argument, inference or point of reference to indicate a theological or hermeneutic principle. I rest my case.

I'm not interested in engaging with your bickering Mark, you've immediately lowered the tone of this thread by slurring anyone who disagrees with you. It's a shame really as I used to take your views as an interesting counter point, but now it's plain to see you are somewhat embittered and incapable of debating honestly, with integrity or without willfully misrepresenting the opposing view. A shame as I said. Don't hold your breathe expecting me to rise to your bait.

 

[Assyrian]

Who wins? How to theistic evolutionists reconcile theology with evolution? What about the Scriptures?

The more we let discoveries about God's creation correct mistaken interpretations the better our theology can become. We learned a lot more about how God speaks to us through his word when heliocentrism showed the literal geocentric interpretations were wrong.

 

[Achilles6129]

Which problem would you like to address first? Like I said, discard mechanistic literalism and, while there will still be theological problems to be overcome, at least you'll be dealing with the right problems.

You could address the basic theological problem of YHWH, the God of life, creating through death, since you can really make Scripture out to say whatever it is you want it to say.

The more we let discoveries about God's creation correct mistaken interpretations the better our theology can become. We learned a lot more about how God speaks to us through his word when heliocentrism showed the literal geocentric interpretations were wrong.

Where does Scripture indicate that the sun revolves around the earth?

 

[Assyrian]

Where does Scripture indicate that the sun revolves around the earth?

It tells us the sun goes across the sky in the day Joshua 10:12&13 where it stopped at Joshua's command and the hurrid to place place it sets. Psalm 19:5&6 describes the sun running its course on a circuit from one end of the heavens to the other. In Eccl 1:5 we are told that at night the hurries to get to the place it is going to rise.

 

[mark kennedy]

You could address the basic theological problem of YHWH, the God of life, creating through death, since you can really make Scripture out to say whatever it is you want it to say.

That's right, a text without a context is a pretext, or in this case, a presupposition.

Where does Scripture indicate that the sun revolves around the earth?

While your waiting on the substantive answer that will never come you might want to consider this question. Why was Galileo called before the Inquisition? The answer might surprise you because it had nothing to do with the Bible, at least that was Galileo's argument. I'll give you a hint, it involved a fictional Aristotelian named Simplicio.

 

[mark kennedy]

It tells us the sun goes across the sky in the day Joshua 10:12&13 where it stopped at Joshua's command and the hurrid to place place it sets. Psalm 19:5&6 describes the sun running its course on a circuit from one end of the heavens to the other. In Eccl 1:5 we are told that at night the hurries to get to the place it is going to rise.

So who or what did the sun marry Psalm 19?

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

Then I suppose that God was telling the truth in the Scriptures.

Of course he was. Just as in Exodus 19, where God says he flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant eagles - he wasn't intending for us to take a narrow literal view. He was speaking figuratively. Similarly, in Genesis, there are all kinds of obvious signs in the text itself to guide interpretation away from a literal reading.

Originally Posted by Papias

The same way you reconcile theology with a spherical earth - through a reasonable interpretation of scripture.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

​

Isa. 40:22 talks about a spherical earth. There is no reconciliation necessary because the Bible never speaks of a flat earth.

Isa 40:22 descibes a flat earth - a flat disk. If you stood on a flat disk and looked around, you would see the horizon making a circle around you. That's why it says "circle", not "sphere".

The Bibles tell us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such, including Martin Luther.

Nothing in the Bibles suggests otherwise. As you mentioned, the only thing suggesting a sphere is a deliberate mistranslation of the word "chuwg" in Isa 40:22, which means "flat disk", not “sphere”. The Hebrews have a word for "sphere", it is "dur". The writer would have used "dur" if he meant "sphere". This is clear in many other places in the Bibles where the world "dur" is used.

From a Christian standpoint, this is a good thing, because if Is 40 did read "dur" instead of "chuwg", then it would contradict all those other equally clear references to the earth as a flat disk.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Achilles6129]

It tells us the sun goes across the sky in the day Joshua 10:12&13 where it stopped at Joshua's command and the hurrid to place place it sets. Psalm 19:5&6 describes the sun running its course on a circuit from one end of the heavens to the other. In Eccl 1:5 we are told that at night the hurries to get to the place it is going to rise.

So I guess meteorologists are wrong when they talk about sunrise and sunset.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

...assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, that is called Darwinism.

mark, do you have a source for that definition? I don't see a reason to think that "Darwinism" means that.

On rare occasions there will be a Theistic Evolutionist who makes a serious effort to affirm Christian theism and the Scriptures as redemptive history.

Do you read my posts? On many occasions I've reaffirmed Christian theism, the Nicene Creed, and Jesus' act of redemption - and I'm far from being the only one. What more do you want?

That's why I've always been puzzled that they almost never so much as make the effort.

I'm finding this hard to believe, mark. I myself have laid out these points many times - especially the description of a real, literal, single first human Adam (and I know you read those posts, because you aimed vitriol at them).

And, as above, I'm far from the only one. In addition to other posts, there is are whole websites and Christian organizations devoted to this, such as biologos.org. Did you already know about them? Have you read from their webpage?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Achilles6129]

Of course he was. Just as in Exodus 19, where God says he flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant eagles - he wasn't intending for us to take a narrow literal view. He was speaking figuratively. Similarly, in Genesis, there are all kinds of obvious signs in the text itself to guide interpretation away from a literal reading.

I see. Well as I said before, you can really make the Bible out to say whatever you wish it to say and no-one can technically refute you. You do have a much more serious problem, however, in the implications of evolution upon theology. As I said before, you are going to have to explain how YHWH, the God of life, creates through death and then proclaims it all "very good."

Since God is the only definition of good, and since his creation was good, then his creation reflected his character at the beginning. In order for your evolutionary interpretation to be correct, death would have to be a part of the nature of God. This is a direct contradiction of basic Biblical theology.

Isa 40:22 descibes a flat earth - a flat disk. If you stood on a flat disk and looked around, you would see the horizon making a circle around you. That's why it says "circle", not "sphere".

As you mentioned, the only thing suggesting a sphere is a deliberate mistranslation of the word "chuwg" in Isa 40:22, which means "flat disk", not “sphere”. The Hebrews have a word for "sphere", it is "dur". The writer would have used "dur" if he meant "sphere". This is clear in many other places in the Bibles where the world "dur" is used.

Actually, if you will visit this link you will see that the lexicon says differently:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H2329 (KJV)

The Bibles tell us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14),

I don't think that's what the verse says

that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), has a length as only a flat plane would (

Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22),

That is not what these passages are actually saying.

and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11)

I believe that was Nebuchadnezzar's dream And he did rule the entire known world of Daniel's time.

or mountain (Matt 4:8),

Satan showed Christ some sort of revelation in time to behold all the kingdoms of the world:

"5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of [b]the world in a moment of time." Luke 4:5 (NASB)

Nothing about the earth being a flat disk