How don't theistic evolution views contradict the bible?

[Vitality]

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)
Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution? Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?

 

[PloverWing]

A very brief answer is that the opening chapters of Genesis were intended to give the meaning of creation, not the method of creation. That is, Genesis tells us that all things come from God, and that all of creation is good (if somewhat broken at present). It is not intended to tell us the sequence and methodology of natural processes.

As to the extinctions: Evolution is a method by which life can adapt to a changing planet. The planet becomes hot, cold, wet, dry -- that's a given; life, instead of becoming completely extinguished, adapts.

Would it have been better if God had created a planet that was static and unchanging, or if God had designed a better method than evolution to allow populations to adapt to changing surroundings? Maybe. I've never designed a universe before, so it's beyond what I know.

 

[Acts2:38]

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply.

You start an OP threat asking a question that offers up discussion of view points and scriptures that refute against such, then you spout off saying don't reply?

Make up your mind or don't even post at all in the "Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution'" topic threads, because you invite discussion by doing so.

It's not even a fact really, it's a theory. Here is the definition of theory for anyone that has forgot or doesn't know:

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Want to know the synonyms attached to this word?

hypothesis; conjecture; speculation.

Hardly fact at all.

he bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution.

You also seem like God just told people to write whatever in scripture, as if they were guided little or not at all. The people that wrote the bible are hand picked by God and guided by the Holy Spirit on what to say, 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17. So technically, God's the author and designer of scripture merely using people to write it out. Also, evolution is really not that complex of an idea. It's just the wrong idea.

The Hebrew word in Genesis for day is "Yom" meaning "day" especially in light of the context of scripture "and the evening and morning" was the "first [yom] day". It's so silly people try to interpret this as an entire age.

What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case.

Yes, just as you are thinking, that is the 'theory' of evolution, which I might add is total in conflict with the bible as you well realize. One or the other is false, however you wish to hold on to both ideas. You are going to have to drop one idea for the other because they conflict.

So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution?

You can be a scientific Christian, just not one that believes in evolution. That's were you get your contradictions.

However, it sounds like you really wish to believe both, but you know you can't. So choose one. It's your choice. I just pray it's the right one.

Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?

The bible only speaks of one, the flood. Where did you get the other 6? The same people that theorize evolution?

 

[JacksBratt]

You start an OP threat asking a question that offers up discussion of view points and scriptures that refute against such, then you spout off saying don't reply?

Make up your mind or don't even post at all in the "Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution'" topic threads, because you invite discussion by doing so.

It's not even a fact really, it's a theory. Here is the definition of theory for anyone that has forgot or doesn't know:

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Want to know the synonyms attached to this word?

hypothesis; conjecture; speculation.

Hardly fact at all.



You also seem like God just told people to write whatever in scripture, as if they were guided little or not at all. The people that wrote the bible are hand picked by God and guided by the Holy Spirit on what to say, 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17. So technically, God's the author and designer of scripture merely using people to write it out. Also, evolution is really not that complex of an idea. It's just the wrong idea.

The Hebrew word in Genesis for day is "Yom" meaning "day" especially in light of the context of scripture "and the evening and morning" was the "first [yom] day". It's so silly people try to interpret this as an entire age.




Yes, just as you are thinking, that is the 'theory' of evolution, which I might add is total in conflict with the bible as you well realize. One or the other is false, however you wish to hold on to both ideas. You are going to have to drop one idea for the other because they conflict.



You can be a scientific Christian, just not one that believes in evolution. That's were you get your contradictions.

However, it sounds like you really wish to believe both, but you know you can't. So choose one. It's your choice. I just pray it's the right one.



The bible only speaks of one, the flood. Where did you get the other 6? The same people that theorize evolution?

Thank you for a well written post of logic and truth.
The OP by their own words, knows that the two are conflicted.

 

[NobleMouse]

Maybe how I'd rephrase the question is: How is theistic evolution positively supported/affirmed in the Bible?

I added the qualifier, "positively" because I think it is understood by both Biblical creationists and theistic evolutionists alike how it is generally supported - Genesis is interpreted by TE's as allegorical and the events/people are not to be taken literally. So, 6 days of creating and resting on the 7th day and making it holy (as affirmed by Exodus 20:11) is to represent billions of years of earth's history.

This is too easy to just reinterpret what is written to mean something other than what it says, so I propose making the question a little more challenging - does the Bible give positive evidence (in that the written words either in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or even in any English version describe what sounds like the billions-of-years progressive Darwinian evolution, in some fashion guided by God, as understood within the general framework of theistic evolution)?

 

[PloverWing]

Maybe how I'd rephrase the question is: How is theistic evolution positively supported/affirmed in the Bible?

I would say that theistic evolution is not positively affirmed in the Bible. To my knowledge, the ancients were not aware of the development of species through natural selection, nor did they know the age of the earth. Thus, these facts are not reflected in their writing.

 

[JacksBratt]

I would say that theistic evolution is not positively affirmed in the Bible. To my knowledge, the ancients were not aware of the development of species through natural selection, nor did they know the age of the earth. Thus, these facts are not reflected in their writing.

I would ask... who's writing is it? Is it the writing of people writing what they think or believe... understand or feel?

Or, is it the Inspired words of God Himself given to the writer through the Holy Spirit.

If I thought that the Holy Scriptures were written by the finite minds of men, being limited by their personal knowledge and comprehension..... I would put it on a shelf, right beside Martha Stewart's cook book.


May I suggest that these words that we read, from Genesis to Revelation, are simple enough for a child to read and understand... while, if searched, researched, studied and dissected...by the wisest minds of this earth.... will unfold into infinite layers of deeper and deeper wonder of the truth of this universe.

All directly from the mind of our Creator, through human fingers, to the world for all of history.

 

[PloverWing]

I would ask... who's writing is it? Is it the writing of people writing what they think or believe... understand or feel?

Or, is it the Inspired words of God Himself given to the writer through the Holy Spirit.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about the nature of Scripture. In my view, the Bible was written by human beings who tell us about their genuine encounters with God; it is the best record we have of the experiences of ancient Israel and the early Christian church, and as such is extremely valuable to us.

This view is one that is common among mainline Protestants. I am aware that it is different from the doctrine of verbal inspiration and inerrancy that is commonly held by Evangelical Protestants.

I don't want to argue about verbal inspiration and inerrancy right now. It's taken me several decades of reflection to make the journey from the Evangelical view to the view I hold now, and I feel exhausted thinking about having to rehash all of it. Let us simply disagree.

If I were going to address the question of evolution from an Evangelical point of view -- and I have heard Evangelicals do this -- I would say that it's still important to pay attention to the different literary genres that appear in Scripture, that Genesis 1 and 2 are not the same kind of literature as a 2018 biology textbook, and that perhaps God didn't think natural selection was spiritually important enough to reveal it to the ancient writers.

 

[JacksBratt]

We are going to have to agree to disagree about the nature of Scripture. In my view, the Bible was written by human beings who tell us about their genuine encounters with God; it is the best record we have of the experiences of ancient Israel and the early Christian church, and as such is extremely valuable to us.

This view is one that is common among mainline Protestants. I am aware that it is different from the doctrine of verbal inspiration and inerrancy that is commonly held by Evangelical Protestants.

I don't want to argue about verbal inspiration and inerrancy right now. It's taken me several decades of reflection to make the journey from the Evangelical view to the view I hold now, and I feel exhausted thinking about having to rehash all of it. Let us simply disagree.

If I were going to address the question of evolution from an Evangelical point of view -- and I have heard Evangelicals do this -- I would say that it's still important to pay attention to the different literary genres that appear in Scripture, that Genesis 1 and 2 are not the same kind of literature as a 2018 biology textbook, and that perhaps God didn't think natural selection was spiritually important enough to reveal it to the ancient writers.

So, I guess, you can write this off:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

and:


2 Peter 1:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

But why argue... right?

 

[PloverWing]

The author of II Timothy does not spell out for us exactly what he means by "inspired". "Inspired" does not necessarily mean "dictated".

On II Peter 1:20-21: I agree that the Old Testament prophets were speaking messages that God revealed to them. Note that prophecy is not the only kind of literature contained in the Old Testament.

On avoiding private interpretation: I agree that it is important to listen to the collected wisdom of the church when interpreting prophecy. I've seen people go off in crazy directions when they failed to do this.

 

[Jamsie]

Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution?

Perhaps we can all agree that the Bible is God's revelation to humankind, and the intent of scriptures is to communicate truth. The intent of scripture was not as a scientific journal but rather as God's truth and plan for us -John 5:39 - "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me."

If one takes Genesis at face value there is in fact a clear opening to interpret processes, and with processes extended time. That it is open to various interpretations does not have any bearing on the overall intent of scripture, salvation through Jesus Christ. As for evolution and the "how" of creation it is quite reasoned to believe a number of scenarios, understanding that it has little bearing on salvation.

 

[NobleMouse]

The author of II Timothy does not spell out for us exactly what he means by "inspired". "Inspired" does not necessarily mean "dictated".

On II Peter 1:20-21: I agree that the Old Testament prophets were speaking messages that God revealed to them. Note that prophecy is not the only kind of literature contained in the Old Testament.

On avoiding private interpretation: I agree that it is important to listen to the collected wisdom of the church when interpreting prophecy. I've seen people go off in crazy directions when they failed to do this.

Greetings PloverWing and thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I'm in agreement that around the time Genesis and other books pointing back to creation was written, ideas like natural selection and random mutation would not have been known.

As @JacksBratt pointed out with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that scripture comes from God. From reading scripture it is clear that some scripture reveals truth as would have been observable to those who penned down the events that took place (I think of the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt and the plagues recorded, the parting of the Red Sea, etc...). Conversely, I think of Isaiah 53:5 speaking of Christ, hundreds of years before Jesus would be born - this is not something Isaiah would ever be alive to see personally.

Interestingly, Jesus is quoted as having made a number of references back to Genesis with both the creation account and the flood of Noah. The one that comes to mind regarding creation is Matthew 19:4. From the ESV this reads as, "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"" - as a reference to Adam and Eve.

Coming back around now to Genesis and the creation account. Moses is generally credited as the writer of Genesis, and we all agree he would not have been present to witness the beginning of creation. With that, do you think what was written came from Moses (he made it up) or from God? It's fine if your response is just your opinion - you don't have to back it up with scripture or science.

Just speaking personally, I doubt Jesus would have made reference to the flood, and Adam and Eve if these were something mythological or fictitious. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:45, "Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." The last Adam here is in reference to Christ. This reference, to me, affirms that Adam was a real person, the first (hu)man, the one written about in Genesis, the one from whom we all are descendants. Reading on through verse 48, this explains our sin nature as we are like the man of dust (Adam), but when we accept Jesus, we bear the image of the man of heaven (Christ). This is clarified more in Romans 5:12-21. Do you feel scripture here on the doctrine of original sin makes more sense if we understand Adam never existed, or does this make more sense if we understand Adam was real?

 

[PloverWing]

Coming back around now to Genesis and the creation account. Moses is generally credited as the writer of Genesis, and we all agree he would not have been present to witness the beginning of creation. With that, do you think what was written came from Moses (he made it up) or from God? It's fine if your response is just your opinion - you don't have to back it up with scripture or science.

Just speaking personally, I doubt Jesus would have made reference to the flood, and Adam and Eve if these were something mythological or fictitious. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:45, "Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." The last Adam here is in reference to Christ. This reference, to me, affirms that Adam was a real person, the first (hu)man, the one written about in Genesis, the one from whom we all are descendants. Reading on through verse 48, this explains our sin nature as we are like the man of dust (Adam), but when we accept Jesus, we bear the image of the man of heaven (Christ). This is clarified more in Romans 5:12-21. Do you feel scripture here on the doctrine of original sin makes more sense if we understand Adam never existed, or does this make more sense if we understand Adam was real?

Greetings to you, most Noble Mouse!

I think that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 were written by human authors, probably at least two different authors, given the differences in style between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The insight that God is the creator of all things -- that the sun and moon and rivers and plants are not themselves gods -- comes from God; it was one of the important revelations from God to the ancient Hebrews. The seven-stanza poem of Genesis 1 and the naming story of Genesis 2 are human writings, two ways of telling us that all things were created by God and that humans have a special place in that creation. I'm reserving judgment about the degree to which Moses himself authored, collected, or edited the book of Genesis; Genesis itself does not identify Moses as the author, after all.

The doctrine of original sin makes sense to me either way. Whether Adam and Eve were the literal first humans, or whether they are a mythological way of talking about human nature, in either case it is evident to us that something is deeply broken about human nature, that we do things that are harmful to ourselves and each other, and we do these things even when we don't want to.

It's hard for me to say what Jesus and Paul knew about ancient history, or how much it mattered to them whether Adam and Eve were literal or figurative. Both of them used both literal and figurative images in their preaching. For example, John the Baptist is a literal person, and the sower of the seed is figurative; Jesus talks about both. From Paul, Onesimus is literal, and the armor of God is figurative.

 

[JacksBratt]

Perhaps we can all agree that the Bible is God's revelation to humankind, and the intent of scriptures is to communicate truth. The intent of scripture was not as a scientific journal but rather as God's truth and plan for us -John 5:39 - "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me."

If one takes Genesis at face value there is in fact a clear opening to interpret processes, and with processes extended time. That it is open to various interpretations does not have any bearing on the overall intent of scripture, salvation through Jesus Christ. As for evolution and the "how" of creation it is quite reasoned to believe a number of scenarios, understanding that it has little bearing on salvation.

IMO, if I take Genesis at "face value", I see no need for interpretation. It is written in plain language. It is not written with the riddles of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". It is not written in the form of a parable. It, also, is not written in a cryptic form as some of the prophesy's of other scriptures are.

In fact, a child can read it and understand, without confusion, exactly what is being told to them.

In my simple understanding of the TOE and other theistic views of evolution...the only reason that men search for a deeper allegorical rendering of these simple words... is because they do not line up with what other men are presenting to be the true history of the earth. These other men are, for the most part, while educated and accredited by academia, and posses doctorates and other degrees... are atheists.

So, for myself, I will take the word of God, over the musings of some atheist driven group of mere men. I am totally confident that when I get to glory and have full knowledge of what has been, I will not be contradicted in my belief.

 

[Jamsie]

IMO, if I take Genesis at "face value", I see no need for interpretation. It is written in plain language. It is not written with the riddles of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". It is not written in the form of a parable. It, also, is not written in a cryptic form as some of the prophesy's of other scriptures are.

Yes, I agree but what is plain to some is not so plain to others. One must admit that much of the Bible is layered and lying just below the plain surface is much depth.

Perhaps your "plain" reading of Genesis 1 and my "plain" reading of the same is different. The very plain words and structure of the passages allow much room for interpretation. I see clearly in the passage processes, I see clearly those processes allowing time, and I see the clear structure supporting that.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, I agree but what is plain to some is not so plain to others. One must admit that much of the Bible is layered and lying just below the plain surface is much depth.

Perhaps your "plain" reading of Genesis 1 and my "plain" reading of the same is different. The very plain words and structure of the passages allow much room for interpretation. I see clearly in the passage processes, I see clearly those processes allowing time, and I see the clear structure supporting that.

As I said before, I see no room for "interpretation of Genesis. Especially it's account of creation.

In fact, I believe that it goes out of it's way in order to clarify things such as "it was evening, it was morning, the first day" ..... for each and every day. As if it was emphasizing this essential truth.

Then, later in the Bible Christ Himself reiterates these facts. Not to mention that the whole week of working 6 days and resting one is founded on this...

I see no reason or method to misunderstand the basics of this.

 

[Jamsie]

As I said before, I see no room for "interpretation of Genesis. Especially it's account of creation.

How then do you interpret Gen. 1:9 or 11 or verse 20, or 24?

 

[JacksBratt]

How then do you interpret Gen. 1:9 or 11 or verse 20, or 24?

These are quite straight forward.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.


12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God commands the earth to grow plants with seeds. Seeds that are specific to each plant. Then, it happened and God saw that it was good...

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

It happened in one day.. no billions of years or morphing or changing... all in one day, as God said. He saw it and it was good in His eyes.. then that day ended.


20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

God commanded the sea to bring forth creatures.. this happened by Him creating them. Each of their own kind.. which means they were already all present, not one changing to others in a long string of evolution. Then He tells them to propagate.

He sees what He has created... it is good... the day ends, as is shown in verse 23.
All the different kinds of creatures... right there, that day, and it was good in God's eyes.. then, the day ends. No billion years... again.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Once again, God commands and creates, all of the different kinds of land animals, then sees them all and it is good...Note: all of them, not one kind that then, billions of years later becomes another.. No, He created them all at once.


24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God, then, the same day, makes man and..... speaks to them...

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So, now God has created everything.. plants, sea creatures, birds, fowl, animals of the earth... and saw that it was good. Then He creates man and talks to Him... He then sees all He created and it is VERY good.
This ends yet another day... all created, all different life forms, all in existence, all GOOD in God's eyes.. at the end of the sixth day....


Pretty simple.

 

[JacksBratt]

How then do you interpret Gen. 1:9 or 11 or verse 20, or 24?

Forgot verse 9.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Again, I cannot see any reason for confusion. It is a simple act of solid liquid separation. He took the water and earth and made dry land with a sea.

Then, He saw that it was good.

Sorry, don't see any reason for confusion.

It is the words of God, written by a man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If it is not... then how do we, then, have hope in the gospel and all of it's supernatural events? Not to mention that Christ's ministry has some pretty wild events of it's own..


Why do people trust the eternal state of their very soul on a whole line of supernatural events.. Water to wine, dead back to life, girl brought back to life over miles of distance, deaf to hear, lame to walk, storms stopped, demons cast out, miraculous production of fish and loaves to end up with 12 baskets of left overs, walking on water.... the list goes on....

We believe this and count on it for solid truth.. because....... our souls depend on it..

Yet will discard another portion of scripture because a bunch of atheists say that the earth tells another story....WHY.

I stand on the Word of God.... it will outlast any fictitious fabrication of Satan presented by men, no matter how many doctorates they have or other letters after their name.

What did Christ say we had to do? Believe... that's all... believe. And not belief in Doctor white coat and his speculation and extrapolation to fit anything they can into a world that can be explained without God.

 

[NobleMouse]

Greetings to you, most Noble Mouse!

I think that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 were written by human authors, probably at least two different authors, given the differences in style between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The insight that God is the creator of all things -- that the sun and moon and rivers and plants are not themselves gods -- comes from God; it was one of the important revelations from God to the ancient Hebrews. The seven-stanza poem of Genesis 1 and the naming story of Genesis 2 are human writings, two ways of telling us that all things were created by God and that humans have a special place in that creation. I'm reserving judgment about the degree to which Moses himself authored, collected, or edited the book of Genesis; Genesis itself does not identify Moses as the author, after all.

Thank you brother for sharing your views on this! I've considered whether Genesis is poetry, although it does not come across as such compared to as when I read poetry in other places in scripture, say in the Psalms, Proverbs, Songs of Solomon, etc...

Numerous studies have been done on the Genesis text and it also seems many Hebraists have concluded that Genesis is narrative - telling of events and people. I've recently enjoyed reading work done by Dr. Steven Boyd. If you're ever interested in some of the work he's done, there are lots of publications and videos, but below are a few quick references:

https://isgenesishistory.com/wp-con...rviews-Steve-Boyd-at-Hebrew-Union-College.pdf

The doctrine of original sin makes sense to me either way. Whether Adam and Eve were the literal first humans, or whether they are a mythological way of talking about human nature, in either case it is evident to us that something is deeply broken about human nature, that we do things that are harmful to ourselves and each other, and we do these things even when we don't want to.

Just philosophically speaking - there had to be a first sin though, right? Otherwise, "sin" becomes just an arbitrary or ambiguous idea. Without sin, there's no need for a savior. Since we all agree we are sinners and have need of a savior, sin is real, and therefore there was a first sin and since we all have sin, there must be a first sinner, like us, yes? Since we all have sin, we can read 1 Corinthians 15:45-48 and have it make sense... because we are all of/from the "man from the earth, of dust." For example, there is no scriptural support for birds or other any other animals being judged or forgiven of sins, it only applies to man.

Now if evolution is true, then "Adam" had parents (and he would have been after their likeness). In other words, they too would have had a sin nature we can presume. So, it would bear to question where God drew the line (if not with Adam) to say a certain living animal was to become accountable to him and now have to repent or spend eternity in hell. I don't think we'll see chimp-like animals in heaven with white robes and say, "oh, there goes an older fellow brother/sister in Christ." Again, just being philosophical.

It's hard for me to say what Jesus and Paul knew about ancient history, or how much it mattered to them whether Adam and Eve were literal or figurative. Both of them used both literal and figurative images in their preaching. For example, John the Baptist is a literal person, and the sower of the seed is figurative; Jesus talks about both. From Paul, Onesimus is literal, and the armor of God is figurative.

Do you think Jesus may not have known about ancient history? From reading John 1:1-3, I believe Jesus was with the Father in the beginning and all things were made through Jesus. I do agree Jesus spoke of both literal figures and in parables, but it seems apparent when it's a parable vs when it is literal. I do not find evidence within scripture that indicates the creation account is figurative, but find rather compelling evidence from Jesus and other writers of scripture that indicate it is literal.