Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Hieronymus]

Science says the universe is expanding from the big bang

Science can't talk.
The Big Bang is a naturalistic scenario, with lots of problems.

and is still expanding.

This seems to be the case yes. Bt it doesn't mean it was once a single point.

So beyond the known Universe, light from the big bang has not arrived so the first day has not yet occurred.

Of course it hadn't, the stars were created on day 4.

 

[Extraneous]

In Genesis 1 it's about "God", and from Genesis 2 on it's "the LORD God".
Also the style is different.

I mean, who knows what Scripture the Noah family took on board the Ark?
What did Moses base it on otherwise?

I cant read the original manuscripts, and none exist anyway, all we have are copies of copies. However, the language may change because the theme has changed. God has many names mentioned in scripture. Sometimes, in other scriptures as well, we see different names for God mentioned in the same text, just like in Genesis. He has many names because its referring to God in different ways. Its my opinion that this theory of two authors of Genesis is most likely a work of people who are in denial, or don't understand scripture. I did read somewhere that this theory of two authors, based on the language variation, is not true, but that the language changes because the theme changes.

Look at this video, God is referred to many ways, depending on whats being said in scripture

 

[Hieronymus]

I cant read the original manuscripts, and none exist anyway, all we have are copies of copies.

I think you underestimate how dedicated the copyists were.

Look at this video, God is referred to many ways, depending on whats being said in scripture

God appears inmany 'forms' or even persons in the OT.
The Word, the Angel of God, the Name, etcetera.

There are some excellent lectures by Michael Heiser on the Godhead (YHWH Elohim) on youtube.

 

[KWCrazy]

So hoghead has turned all the prophets into idiots who think the world is flat, and he has also destroyed the genealogy of genesis, thereby turning the prophets into fictional characters as well. He also contradicts Christ who quoted both genesis Chapter 1 and 2 in the same scripture. Yet he believe an <staff edit>theory such as ToE.<staff edit>

It's pretty easy to see that the intent here is to attack Christianity and teach at every opportunity that the Bible is wrong in nearly everything it states. There is no reverence for the word, only disdain for those simple enough to believe it in light of all the claims made by those who study the physical world and disavow the supernatural world.

 

[Extraneous]

I think you underestimate how dedicated the copyists were.God appears inmany 'forms' or even persons in the OT.
The Word, the Angel of God, the Name, etcetera.

There are some excellent lectures by Michael Heiser on the Godhead (YHWH Elohim) on youtube.

What are the two name used in Genesis chapters 1 and 2? Give me the original language, and their precise translation as well. It was probably Aramaic or something i assume?

Do we even know what the original manuscript was penned in? Its through translation that error is made.

Also, are those two names mentioned anywhere else in genesis? Answer those questions before dismissing the sole authorship of Genesis, please.

 

[Stephen Douglas]

I believe in a literal six (more or less) days of creation because of the seventh day being declared as holy by God with a requirement of a 24 hr (more or less) observance by the chosen Hebrews. That doesn't mean that the world is not very old because there is no scriptural information concerning how long the earth was in a state of "null and void".

Evolution is a theory that is backed with much evidence in the form of fossils and other archaeological findings to support random mutation as the explanation for the variety of life forms that exist on earth. It has some validity IMO. But does not even attempt to explain the origin of existences. Species go through changes. We can see that and measure it. No person has lived long enough to witness the mutation of a species to the extent that it is no longer recognizable as that species. We have a reasoning ability that logically speculates based on empirical evidence that monkeys and humans must have evolved from the same species since there are so many similarities but this is merely educated speculation.

Since I was not around to witness these events myself I can only entertain the logic of it all without conjuring the faith to believe unto death. The things that I know for sure have been revealed to me in a spiritual way. Those are the things that I will die for. Polls and studies and evidences......well I don't discount those. God knows all truth and I know God. It is ok that I don't understand all things. God has revealed to me all that I need. Let the intellectuals debate the rest.

 

[ScottA]

<staff edit>
First, because you do not use the "Reply" feature, I totally missed your reply, and would have never known if I had not noticed that you don't use it. Many of us rely on the "Alert" function to know when someone has replied to a comment.

Your premise is greatly flawed. You are [assuming] that your assessment of the beginning and the end of all things are of less importance than your assessment of the present. In other words, instead of considering the providence of God, you have made science your god (the final authority).

You are acting as if God did not factor in the historic, human component...that He somehow needs to be brought up to speed with scientific discovery. Which, of course, simply shows how little you actually know of the greater truth. If you understood the providence of God, you would know that He not only factored in the historic, human component...He brought it about. Moreover, it is all part of the plan. So, you now saying, Ah, ha! ... is indeed sad, if not laughable.

If you are going to reply, please use the "Reply" feature.

 

[jj3pa]

Maybe, but the main problem is that there's no evidence to support the idea of development of specialistic traits (like organs and systems of organs) but just selecting random mutations.
In other words, peer pressure and popular consensus is not enough for everyone to accept an impossible idea.

<staff edit>I can give you reams of evidence to support the idea of specialized traits ... But that's not even the core of the discussion. Mutations work because they survive.

A broader issue is whether you can be a Christian and not take the Bible literally. If you can, then who cares if evolution right or wrong ? If you can't , and you believe your literal interpretation precludes any others, then it's not even up for discussion.

I say your literal interpretation because there are many literal translations - because there are many translations, some of them contradicting in places. The King James Bible for instance is one of the worst translations out there - it was the best then, but now we have so many better sources. (And many original sources that don't align). And my feeling is if you take that part literally, then you must take the whole bowl of wax literally - like selling daughters and all that. You don't get to pick and choose then.

 

[Butch5]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

I think the reason many have trouble with evolution is because it's not true. There's a difference between observational science and one's beliefs about origins.

 

[GraceSeeker]

"Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?"

Why do you begin this thread by asking a question that assumes facts that are not in evidence?
Several people have testified that they have no trouble accepting evolution. Yet your response to them is "Thats [sic] wrong though." Why would you do that? Why won't you let people tell you what they actually believe rather than you telling them what they believe or that it is wrong for them to believe what they believe? You seem so closed to any possibility other than what you have erroneously projected other's worldview to be. So, let me state it as clearly as I can: Your premise is false. Some do have trouble. But many more don't have any trouble with accepting evolution. You could have just as easily have asked, "Why don't Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?" and been no more in error than you were with this question.

 

[Calminian]

Gen. 2, Cal, is definitely not talking about Day 6 from Gen. 1. The reason, as I have already pointed out, is that 2 gives a reverse chronology from the Gen. 1 account.

Which I addressed. It's a perfectly acceptable way to communicate a past event, especially if you're getting the reader up to speed as the 1 Kings example shows. We do this in english all the time.

In fact, your argument that these accounts may have had different authors (originally, before Moses compiled them), supports my case. If they were originally stand alone accounts, it makes perfect sense the author would reference that God created those animals.

 

[jj3pa]

First, because you do not use the "Reply" feature, I totally missed your reply, and would have never known if I had not noticed that you don't use it. Many of us rely on the "Alert" function to know when someone has replied to a comment.

Your premise is greatly flawed. You are [assuming] that your assessment of the beginning and the end of all things are of less importance than your assessment of the present. In other words, instead of considering the providence of God, you have made science your god (the final authority).

You are acting as if God did not factor in the historic, human component...that He somehow needs to be brought up to speed with scientific discovery. Which, of course, simply shows how little you actually know of the greater truth. If you understood the providence of God, you would know that He not only factored in the historic, human component...He brought it about. Moreover, it is all part of the plan. So, you now saying, Ah, ha! ... is indeed sad, if not laughable.

If you are going to reply, please use the "Reply" feature.

Your premise is flawed when it assumes that the Bible is the same as God. If you take that equation out of the picture then anything is possible. If you say the Bible is a series of writings written by men , inspired by God, but not historically accurate or scientifically, then you're not talking of the providence of God. The only place the Bible is proven to be of God is in the Bible. In logic, that is what is called a circular reference.

There are plenty of versions of the Bible about, plenty of apocryphal books ... translations etc. Each different.
Science, i.e. that concerns the physical world is about facts that are repeatable, and methodically disproven.

Religion doesn't have those constraints. And a good scientist won't say there is no God because there is evolution. Many scientists (I can give you hundreds of names) consider evolution to be a work of God.

On the other hand because of how someone decides to read a book written centuries ago of which we have no original copies, people make the decision to take certain stories literally. And most of these stories like creation, or the flood can be traced back to Sumerians.

 

[Calminian]

Well, I wait to see what you come up with on Job. Also, there are about 70 major passages in Scripture that claim a flat earth. Funny, you missed those in your biblical readings.

actually, there are none. Earth means land in the Bible, and land has peaks and valleys. It's is rarely flat.

also, Job is largely the testimony of unbelievers who are rebuked by God toward then end of the book, saying they were speaking without knowledge. To use those unbelievers as your source that God makes mistakes is not logical. The fact that the Bible records a man saying something is not proof the author or God is endorsing that view.

 

[Extraneous]

Here is what i see in Genesis from chapter 1-3. In chapter one the name "Elohim" is used. In chapter 2 the name changes when the story changes, and the name changes to "Yahweh Elohim". Then in chapter 3 we see both "Elohim" and "Yahweh Elohim" used. Does this mean that chapter 1,2 and 3 have three separate authors?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

...let's not forget though, that even in the churches (from within the organisation, not necessarily the flock) evolution is accepted as truth.

Teachers take responsibility for the convictions of their students, you see.

I agree... our church has an extensive school system that has been infiltrated by worldly doctrines for decades now.... truly sad to see. As you said the young impressionable minds faithfully listening to their esteemed, learned, elders<staff edit>.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Your premise is flawed when it assumes that the Bible is the same as God. If you take that equation out of the picture then anything is possible. If you say the Bible is a series of writings written by men , inspired by God, but not historically accurate or scientifically, then you're not talking of the providence of God. The only place the Bible is proven to be of God is in the Bible. In logic, that is what is called a circular reference.

There are plenty of versions of the Bible about, plenty of apocryphal books ... translations etc. Each different.
Science, i.e. that concerns the physical world is about facts that are repeatable, and methodically disproven.

Religion doesn't have those constraints. And a good scientist won't say there is no God because there is evolution. Many scientists (I can give you hundreds of names) consider evolution to be a work of God.

On the other hand because of how someone decides to read a book written centuries ago of which we have no original copies, people make the decision to take certain stories literally. And most of these stories like creation, or the flood can be traced back to Sumerians.

You're working on a false premise because you forgot one thing and that is it's God's word and GOD is more than able to preserve it despite of all the recent bible perversions man has come up with. You see the original ones that were translated by actual men of God are still in existence. So yes there are many versions of the bible around and those that are truly saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit know which bibles are true to God. So the problem here is are you a born again Christian? John 3:3, 5, 7, 16 - 21.

 

[Extraneous]

Chapter one uses only the name "God"

Chapter 2 uses "God" until the end of the creation story. But when it begins again (garden story) it changes to "Lord God"

Then in chapter 3 we see Eve calling Him "Lord God" but Satan calling Him "God"

Then in Chapter 4 we see only "Lord" used

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Chapter one uses only the name "God"

Chapter 2 uses "God" until the end of the creation story. But when it begins again (garden story) it changes to "Lord God"

Then in chapter 3 we see Eve calling Him "Lord God" but Satan calling Him "God"

Then in Chapter 4 we see only "Lord" used

The "Lord God" is the creator.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

2 This same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

The reason why some Christians do and others don't accept evolution can be summed up in how one views the bible. Some Christians see the bible as infallible and perfect in every way shape and form. If some scientific or historic discovery contradicts this interpretation of the bible, said knowledge is always viewed as wrong. In the other camp you have those (including me) that don't think the bible needs to infallible and always accurate when it comes to history. That there are other ways for a book of the bible to teach truth. While God brings inspiration in the bible there is also the human/culture influence. Like Jesus the bible is a product of man and God. Unlike him, the bible acquires human imperfection (one example is is knowledge, with the flat earth belief).

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

The reason why some Christians do and others don't accept evolution can be summed up in how one views the bible. Some Christians see the bible as infallible and perfect in every way shape and form. If some scientific or historic discovery contradicts this interpretation of the bible, said knowledge is always viewed as wrong. In the other camp you have those (including me) that don't think the bible needs to infallible and always accurate when it comes to history. That there are other ways for a book of the bible to teach truth. While God brings inspiration in the bible there is also the human/culture influence. Like Jesus the bible is a product of man and God. Unlike him, the bible acquires human imperfection (one example is is knowledge, with the flat earth belief).

So how do you know your "interpretation" of the bible is correct if the bible has errors in it? God didn't author the bible so we could guess if it was right or wrong or is that in fact what you believe?

2 Tim 3 :
16 For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness,
17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works.

Matt 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.