Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[Subduction Zone]

But without animals to evolve alongside, the Bible still suggests that many fruit trees, with fruit good for eating, still existed in that state on day three without the presence of animals.

Yes, but we know that is wrong. Again, Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. In fact animals existed long before fruit did. Check out the biologos site. You need to get some basic science classes before you can even ask reasonable questions.

 

[spinner981]

Yes, but we know that is wrong. Again, Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. In fact animals existed long before fruit did. Check out the biologos site. You need to get some basic science classes before you can even ask reasonable questions.

Your argument of "You're wrong, go learn stuff until you believe that." isn't very convincing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the entirety of Genesis is taken as myth? Chapters 1 through 50? What other parts of the Bible do you take as myth, and why?

Genesis is taken to be largely mythical because the evidence says otherwise. We can investigate the past with the fossil record and other scientific tools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your argument of "You're wrong, go learn stuff until you believe that." isn't very convincing.

It doesn't have to be. You clearly have no education in science, I offered to link some basic videos on evolution but the simple fact is that you need to learn quite a bit before you can even form sensible questions. People may point you where to go to learn, but you need to do most of the work yourself.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

So the entirety of Genesis is taken as myth? Chapters 1 through 50? What other parts of the Bible do you take as myth, and why?

It's possible that parts of Genesis contain historical elements, such as Abraham could be a real historical person. For the most part, I take Genesis as being a set of foundational myths/stories that gave the Israelites a national origins story. Sort of like how The Aeneid is a national history story for Rome, or Enuma Elish is a national origins story for another ancient near eastern culture. The reasons I think this way are twofold. Study of nature point very clearly toward and old Earth and common descent of life. Study of scripture shows that Genesis is the same sort of literature as stories like Enuma Elish, so I expect to learn different things from it than literal history. This is a very brief overview of the Theistic Evolution interpretation of scripture. If you have more in-depth questions, I refer you to real scholars like those over at Biologos.Biology is really more my area of expertise than Biblical scholarship.

 

[spinner981]

It doesn't have to be. You clearly have no education in science, I offered to link some basic videos on evolution but the simple fact is that you need to learn quite a bit before you can even form sensible questions. People may point you where to go to learn, but you need to do most of the work yourself.

You have barely read anything from me, but you are assuming that I have zero education in science because I believe the Bible is true? Is that what you're saying?

 

[spinner981]

It's possible that parts of Genesis contain historical elements, such as Abraham could be a real historical person. For the most part, I take Genesis as being a set of foundational myths/stories that gave the Israelites a national origins story. Sort of like how The Aeneid is a national history story for Rome, or Enuma Elish is a national origins story for another ancient near eastern culture. The reasons I think this way are twofold. Study of nature point very clearly toward and old Earth and common descent of life. Study of scripture shows that Genesis is the same sort of literature as stories like Enuma Elish, so I expect to learn different things from it than literal history. This is a very brief overview of the Theistic Evolution interpretation of scripture. If you have more in-depth questions, I refer you to real scholars like those over at Biologos.Biology is really more my area of expertise than Biblical scholarship.

Don't most people who believe in old earth just subscribe to gap theory or day age theory? I haven't heard of many people who just assume the entirety of Genesis was just made up.

Do you believe the rest of the Bible is made up? Do you believe any of the Bible is God breathed, or inspired by God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have barely read anything from me, but you are assuming that I have zero education in science because I believe the Bible is true? Is that what you're saying?

Your questions that you ask tell me that. The questions that a person asks tell quite a bit about their knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't most people who believe in old earth just subscribe to gap theory or day age theory? I haven't heard of many people who just assume the entirety of Genesis was just made up.

Do you believe the rest of the Bible is made up? Do you believe any of the Bible is God breathed, or inspired by God?

If you look at the statistic it appears worldwide that most Christians accept the theory of evolution. By the way there is no such thing as a "Gap theory", that is an abuse of the word "theory".

 

[spinner981]

Your questions that you ask tell me that. The questions that a person asks tell quite a bit about their knowledge.

Example?

If you look at the statistic it appears worldwide that most Christians accept the theory of evolution. By the way there is no such thing as a "Gap theory", that is an abuse of the word "theory".

Theory can mean something other than scientific theory. Also, evolution tends to be a part of day age theory.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Don't most people who believe in old earth just subscribe to gap theory or day age theory? I haven't heard of many people who just assume the entirety of Genesis was just made up.

Do you believe the rest of the Bible is made up? Do you believe of the Bible is God breathed, or inspired by God?

As far as I'm aware, Theistic Evolution as described by me above is the position of most Christians who agree about how clearly science shows how old the Earth is and how obvious common descent is. Day-Age and Gap Theory interpretation have always seemed like minority voices to me, but I don't know the numbers.

Also, it's not an assumption that Genesis is mostly or all myth. It's a conclusion reached by serious research by both Biblical scholars and scientists. I do believe the Bible is God breathed and inspired by God, but I reject the idea that means every story in it must be historical fact or it isn't relevant or useful. Story can be useful and meaningful even if it is fiction. I think the only parts of scripture that NEED to be historical fact from a Christian perspective are the parts about Christ. There are many parts that are obviously fiction, other parts that could be true, but only Christ needs to true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Example?

Every question that you have asked here. And you have shown an aversion to learning. Not a good sign.

Theory can mean something other than scientific theory. Also, evolution tends to be a part of day age theory.

Not in this case. If you are trying to describe what happened in the past that implies that you are using science. It is a misuse of the word. It indicates dishonesty on the part of the person that coined that phrase.

 

[spinner981]

If you look at the statistic it appears worldwide that most Christians accept the theory of evolution. By the way there is no such thing as a "Gap theory", that is an abuse of the word "theory".

Are you talking about the word 'theory' as in scientific theory or a non-scientific theory?

As far as I'm aware, Theistic Evolution as described by me above is the position of most Christians who agree about how clearly science shows how old the Earth is and how obvious common descent is. Day-Age and Gap Theory interpretation have always seemed like minority voices to me, but I don't know the numbers.

Also, it's not an assumption that Genesis is mostly or all myth. It's a conclusion reached by serious research by both Biblical scholars and scientists. I do believe the Bible is God breathed and inspired by God, but I reject the idea that means every story in it must be historical fact or it isn't relevant or useful. Story can be useful and meaningful even if it is fiction. I think the only parts of scripture that NEED to be historical fact from a Christian perspective are the parts about Christ. There are many parts that are obviously fiction, other parts that could be true, but only Christ needs to true.

But if we assume that any part of the Bible could be fictional, how do we defend the belief that Christ is the only exception to that rule and isn't fictional?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am new to these forums, this is my first post. I've thought about theistic evolution before, and reading through Genesis this verse gets my attention...

I get the impression that you think that theistic evolution is the same as completely harmonizing science and the bible. I don't think this is the case. (I also don't think it can be done.)

In my experience, people who call themselves theistic evolutionists basically accept our current view of evolution, but believe that their god(s) guided the process in some way over time in order to produce what we see today.

In my experience, people who talk about day-ages and gaps refer to themselves as old earth creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I'm aware, Theistic Evolution as described by me above is the position of most Christians who agree about how clearly science shows how old the Earth is and how obvious common descent is. Day-Age and Gap Theory interpretation have always seemed like minority voices to me, but I don't know the numbers.

Also, it's not an assumption that Genesis is mostly or all myth. It's a conclusion reached by serious research by both Biblical scholars and scientists. I do believe the Bible is God breathed and inspired by God, but I reject the idea that means every story in it must be historical fact or it isn't relevant or useful. Story can be useful and meaningful even if it is fiction. I think the only parts of scripture that NEED to be historical fact from a Christian perspective are the parts about Christ. There are many parts that are obviously fiction, other parts that could be true, but only Christ needs to true.

That is what I have seen too. Basically they are saying that life evolved, but God guided it. That means they accept common descent, which rules out the Adam and Eve story. Genesis may be looked on as a series of morality tales that still can teach a lesson. But that lesson is not the history of how life got here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you talking about the word 'theory' as in scientific theory or a non-scientific theory?

When talking about matters covered by science of course we are going to use the proper definition of "theory".

But if we assume that any part of the Bible could be fictional, how do we defend the belief that Christ is the only exception to that rule and isn't fictional?

Please don't use the word "assume". If you are making an assumption you could easily be wrong. The evidence tells us that Genesis is wrong if read literally, there is no assumption involved.

 

[Widlast]

The Bible is made up of several different types of testimony. The first is third hand accounts, i.e. stories, legends, and/or histories written down long after they occurred. Genesis is a good example of this.
The second type is first hand accounts, such as the synoptic Gospels. People writing down what they experienced themselves.
The third type is prophecies, such as Daniel or Revelations. People being told what would come to pass at some future date, often in very symbolic language.

You don't have to take every last word in the Bible literally to be a completely faithful Christian and know all that is profitable for salvation. The reason that a lot of folks accept evolution is because that is what the evidence points to. Whether God helped it along at times (such as killing off the dinosaurs with a meteor) is a matter of faith, not science. At some point you may be able to ask Him.

 

[spinner981]

Every question that you have asked here. And you have shown an aversion to learning. Not a good sign.

You haven't really said anything so far apart from "You're wrong." so I see no reason to just take your word for it without some sort of explanation.

Not in this case. If you are trying to describe what happened in the past that implies that you are using science. It is a misuse of the word. It indicates dishonesty on the part of the person that coined that phrase.

I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to consider the possibility of anything happening in the past without resorting to science.

I get the impression that you think that theistic evolution is the same as completely harmonizing science and the bible. I don't think this is the case. (I also don't think it can be done.)

In my experience, people who call themselves theistic evolutionists basically accept our current view of evolution, but believe that their god(s) guided the process in some way over time in order to produce what we see today.

In my experience, people who talk about day-ages and gaps refer to themselves as old earth creationists.

I guess I should have been more specific. My primary intention was questioning the notion of a compatibility between the theory of evolution and a literal Genesis account.

Please don't use the word "assume". If you are making an assumption you could easily be wrong. The evidence tells us that Genesis is wrong if read literally, there is no assumption involved.

If you believe in things that conflict with the Genesis account; ie: the theory of evolution? Correct?

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

But if we assume that any part of the Bible could be fictional, how do we defend the belief that Christ is the only exception to that rule and isn't fictional?

Lots of reasons. The Bible contains many different genres of literature. Just because one of those genres is myth doesn't mean that other genres can't more more historical. Genre is understood by the content of a particular writing, and the cultural context it was written in. Also, most serious Biblical scholars, even Atheists like Bart Ehrman, agree that Jesus was certainly a historical person. Obviously there is disagreement about who exacta he was though. But at the end of the day, I believe Christ because I have faith in Christ. That's the point of Christianity. If my faith was in the Bible as a historical textbook and Christ as an incidental consequence, then I'd be better labelled a Biblian, not a Christian.

 

[spinner981]

Lots of reasons. The Bible contains many different genres of literature. Just because one of those genres is myth doesn't mean that other genres can't more more historical. Genre is understood by the content of a particular writing, and the cultural context it was written in. Also, most serious Biblical scholars, even Atheists like Bart Ehrman, agree that Jesus was certainly a historical person. Obviously there is disagreement about who exacta he was though. But at the end of the day, I believe Christ because I have faith in Christ. That's the point of Christianity. If my faith was in the Bible as a historical textbook and Christ as an incidental consequence, then I'd be better labelled a Biblian, not a Christian.

So you believe in the account of Jesus Christ in the Bible because you have faith that it is true? Most historians accept Jesus as a real historical figure, but very few believe He actually rose from the dead. To many that account is false because it conflicts with their worldviews: that the supernatural doesn't exist. Isn't it then the same thing to believe in other books of the Bible based off of faith, even if they conflict with other worldviews?