Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

Sure. Now you need to prove p3 is true. If you like, I can assume that P3=p3 is true. What is next?

PS I reserve the right to ask you to prove p3 at some time in the future

I have formulated a problem for you to solve. Is p3 true? Why or why not? Why I want to know, is because creationists claim that p3 is false. They claim it like it's a fact. I want to know if there is proof.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 2:7 - God breathed into his nostrils a breath of life and he became a living being. If what you say is true, then Adam was already a biologically alive being, so this would be talking about God making him spiritually alive - giving him a soul. Which to me means that his mom and dad and siblings and every other human on earth living up to that moment had no soul.

I don't view this as God breathing a soul into Adam. Rather, Adam in and of himself is the nephesh. That became living. So I don't think it's God giving a nephesh, a nephesh. If that makes sense.

I would see it as God giving a nephesh a reason or purpose for life.

 

[Job 33:6]

Aristotel lived some 350 years before Christ, so the idea that the world is a sphere was known in Paul’s time. I don’t know what Paul personally knew or thought, but I think that it’s an assumption that he was talking about the geographic area. But it’s just my opinion. But ok, let’s assume that all the nations of the whole earth refers to a geographic area. That would mean that the flood did not wipe out all of earth, but only the known geographic are. That would mean that after the flood there would be descendants of Noah and a bunch of other people. And if at least one of those people travelled from their region to the area which Paul was referring to, and had a children, than God did not create all nations in the known world from one man Noah. This is why I think Paul is referring to Adam.

Just because some people on earth had identified the spherical shape of the earth, didn't mean that Paul knew that. But further, even with knowledge of a spherical earth, which I would doubt Paul had given the textual evidence in the Bible, even still, Paul wouldn't have known about people on distant continents. Or "antipodes" as St. Augustine suggested didnt exist centuries after Paul. Many early church fathers didn't know earth was a sphere and that was several hundred years after the authorship of the NT.

And yes that's correct about the flood. I hold a local flood view.

Noah's descendents were on the ark with him. So they would have survived.

However, numbers 13:33 does mention descendents of the nephelim that did survive the flood.

I don't think Paul is trying to make a scientific explanation when he says "all nations". I think he's just speaking theologically. He's saying that God is the creator and all depends on Him. It's not meant to be taken as some kind of mathematical formula where we could ponder various technical arguments against him. Paul isn't a scientist, he's a theologian.

 

[Job 33:6]

So in other words, what you are saying is that Paul says God created all the people and nations. Right? But then why does he say “from one man”? He could have just said “God created”, but he doesn’t. Does that mean that “from one man” is important? I think it is.

Here’s what I think the Bible says. God created a man, Adam, different from animals - in God’s image and with a soul. He was an actual physical person and not an allegory. I believe that Adam was created mortal, but as long as he could eat from the tree of life he was immortal. I believe that God created a physical Eve from Adam. She was the same as Adam - made not an animal, made in God’s image, mortal but having access to the tree of life. This one man Adam sinned, along with his wife, and both were forbidden to eat from the tree of life. Therefore sin entered the human kind (which at the time consisted of 2 people), and with sin, death. Then Adam and Eve had kids according to their kind - not animals, created in God’s image, with a soul, sinful, and mortal, and not having access to the tree of life. Then God sent His son to take a form of one physical man to redeem all human kind from sin and death.

Here’s what I don’t think the Bible says. How exactly God made the world. How long exactly it took. How exactly He made Adam.

God doesn’t spell it all out for us because it’s not important to our salvation. We can study things or not study things, we can know more or we can know less, and the different disciplines we study can disagree with each other and still not be in conflict. There is something we should not do, in my opinion. We should not present our interpretation of God’s word as God’s word. Gods word is inerrant. Our interpretation is not. We should try to understand the Scripture, and for that we do have to interpret it, but I don’t believe that we should say “I am right and you are wrong”, unless the person contradicts something very obvious. Like if someone said “the Bible says that devil is the good guy”, I would say that they are obviously wrong.

Oh, and just to clarify. Above I presented what I think. Doesn’t mean that it’s flawless, and I didn’t say that I am right and you are wrong. I just said this is what I think, this makes sense to me. That’s all. And when I ask you questions, I am not asking them because I am right, I am analyzing your opinion and my opinion, to see where they are the same, where they differ, why they differ, and is it important.

I find that people hear me ask questions and assume that I think I am right and they are wrong. That’s not why I ask questions, but I am evaluating a different opinion before I decide whether or not I need to change mine.

As noted above, I think Paul is referencing Noah and the table of nations.

It's fine.


Id recommend John Waltons "the lost world of Adam and Eve" to summarize my views.

I tend to view Genesis 2 as a sequel to Genesis 1. Which means that all of mankind is created, in a spiritual sense, not material, in Genesis 1. And then the story zooms in on a specific holy space, Eden, and tells the story of Adam and Eve.

And that's where Cain's wife comes from. From humanity outside the garden.

When Paul says that all nations come from one [it doesn't say from one man, it just says from one], I just don't see Paul as trying to make a scientifically valid statement. I think he's just telling people that God is creator. And if there is a population of native tribes in some distant continent beyond the nations that Paul is aware of, I don't think that matters.

He's just speaking in theological terms, not biological. Adam is a spiritual head. A spiritual leader. The first elected priest-king of God's kingdom.

I don't see calling Adam "the first" as having anything to do with biology. But everything to do with his status as God's first chosen man.

So, all nations came from one, would be more of a theological concept. Not Paul trying to lay out a science lesson on genetics or biological descent.

 

[Dan1988]

If there is no creator, then nothing was created. You need to define what you mean by *created*.

Wow, how many ways can you invent to twist the meaning of plain ordinary words. Let's see if you twist what the English Dictionary meaning of the word. "Created" Having come into being as the result of action or someone's creative process.

Notice there's nothing there to support the scientific theory of everything coming into existence from nothing. Creation needs a Creator period, this fact cannot be twisted

 

[olgamc]

As noted above, I think Paul is referencing Noah and the table of nations.

It's fine.


Id recommend John Waltons "the lost world of Adam and Eve" to summarize my views.

I tend to view Genesis 2 as a sequel to Genesis 1. Which means that all of mankind is created, in a spiritual sense, not material, in Genesis 1. And then the story zooms in on a specific holy space, Eden, and tells the story of Adam and Eve.

And that's where Cain's wife comes from. From humanity outside the garden.

When Paul says that all nations come from one [it doesn't say from one man, it just says from one], I just don't see Paul as trying to make a scientifically valid statement. I think he's just telling people that God is creator. And if there is a population of native tribes in some distant continent beyond the nations that Paul is aware of, I don't think that matters.

He's just speaking in theological terms, not biological. Adam is a spiritual head. A spiritual leader. The first elected priest-king of God's kingdom.

I don't see calling Adam "the first" as having anything to do with biology. But everything to do with his status as God's first chosen man.

So, all nations came from one, would be more of a theological concept. Not Paul trying to lay out a science lesson on genetics or bio

I don't view this as God breathing a soul into Adam. Rather, Adam in and of himself is the nephesh. That became living. So I don't think it's God giving a nephesh, a nephesh. If that makes sense.

I would see it as God giving a nephesh a reason or purpose for life.

does that mean that Adam’s mom and dad did not have a purpose for life?

 

[olgamc]

As noted above, I think Paul is referencing Noah and the table of nations.

It's fine.


Id recommend John Waltons "the lost world of Adam and Eve" to summarize my views.

I tend to view Genesis 2 as a sequel to Genesis 1. Which means that all of mankind is created, in a spiritual sense, not material, in Genesis 1. And then the story zooms in on a specific holy space, Eden, and tells the story of Adam and Eve.

And that's where Cain's wife comes from. From humanity outside the garden.

When Paul says that all nations come from one [it doesn't say from one man, it just says from one], I just don't see Paul as trying to make a scientifically valid statement. I think he's just telling people that God is creator. And if there is a population of native tribes in some distant continent beyond the nations that Paul is aware of, I don't think that matters.

He's just speaking in theological terms, not biological. Adam is a spiritual head. A spiritual leader. The first elected priest-king of God's kingdom.

I don't see calling Adam "the first" as having anything to do with biology. But everything to do with his status as God's first chosen man.

So, all nations came from one, would be more of a theological concept. Not Paul trying to lay out a science lesson on genetics or biological descent.

From one what? You are losing me. And what do you mean that it’s a theological concept? So like, all belief systems came from one God? I certainly disagree with that, if that’s what you mean to say.

 

[Dan1988]

Hey. Thank you for posting the video, I watched it. I have a few comments.

1. I want to point out what he says around minute 35. "look outside the box and not confine yourselves to only one option". That is exactly what I've been saying! Scientists - evolution exists, God does not. Some Christians - God exists, evolution does not. Ok Christians. You want the scientists to open up their mind to other possibilities? But you have a log in your own eye. Why don't you open up your eyes to other possibilities, namely that both God and evolution can exist. And I am talking about the mechanics of evolution and not the theory of evolution, because we already know that the theory exists. It might not be true, but it exists.

2. Around minute 30 he defined different probability terms. At 33:59 he says that scientists confuse the terms and say "must have happened because it could have happened". But we Christians do the same!!! "God could have created things instantly, so He must have created the world instantly."

3. At 39:57 - "functional information cannot be generated from purely physical properties". Why did he say that? How does he know? I want proof. Then he says "it just has never been observed". Wait, what just happened? Did they just say "we haven't see it, therefore it is impossible"? According to their own definition of probability terms, that not what "we haven't seen it" means.

See? This is why I get so frustrated with these creation videos. The creators of these videos contradict themselves and don't notice logs in their own eyes.

The problem for us Christians is, we know the absolute truth. But non Christians want to drag us into their category and apply the same false logic to our understanding as they are afflicted with. You will never convince a person who knows the truth that Superman and Robin Hood are still alive in Hollywood.
You can believe in fairy tales all you want, but you can't expect intelligent people to put their fait in an unproven baseless theory. I don't put my faith in that Carleton Charles Darwin, I put my faith in His creator. Is the thing created greater than it's Creator. You need to deal with the truth and stop dancing around the truth.

 

[olgamc]

Wow, how many ways can you invent to twist the meaning of plain ordinary words. Let's see if you twist what the English Dictionary meaning of the word. "Created" Having come into being as the result of action or someone's creative process.

Notice there's nothing there to support the scientific theory of everything coming into existence from nothing. Creation needs a Creator period, this fact cannot be twisted

Dan1988, that’s why

The problem for us Christians is, we know the absolute truth. But non Christians want to drag us into their category and apply the same false logic to our understanding as they are afflicted with. You will never convince a person who knows the truth that Superman and Robin Hood are still alive in Hollywood.
You can believe in fairy tales all you want, but you can't expect intelligent people to put their fait in an unproven baseless theory. I don't put my faith in that Carleton Charles Darwin, I put my faith in His creator. Is the thing created greater than its Creator. You need to deal with the truth and stop dancing around the truth.

You don’t see my point about a log in our own eye.

What do you think I believe, Dan1988. Can you please point out, from what I said, what is not true?

And I am not sure what you mean by putting faith in Darwin. Of course not! Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, nobody comes to the Father except through Him. You know that, I know that, so I really have no idea what you mean.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think the quotes got mixed up. But Adam and eves parents were not elected for a purpose. Or they at least were not the first ones chosen by God for a purpose. That purpose being outlined in Genesis 1:26-28, image bearers are to subdue and rule.

 

[Job 33:6]

From one what? You are losing me. And what do you mean that it’s a theological concept? So like, all belief systems came from one God? I certainly disagree with that, if that’s what you mean to say.

The Bible doesn't say "from one man". The Greek just says "from one", which is why KJV has "blood", some don't have any word at all.

But what I'm saying is that, Paul's goal is to speak concepts that are theologically true. That's what he's inspired by God to do.

Paul's goal is not to make statements that, must be scientifically verifiable, or they are otherwise wrong.

If Paul says that all nations are of God, it doesn't matter if he doesn't know about Australia. Theologically his statement is still true. Even if from a scientific stance, someone could theoretically go back in a time machine and correct him by informing him of aboriginals that he didn't know about in the nation of Australia (which wouldnt have existed back then, but I hope you get the point).

It's ok if Paul didn't know about nations on the other side of the planet. Because the truth that Paul is speaking is not something dependent upon scientific accuracy.

 

[Dan1988]

Dan1988, that’s why

You don’t see my point about a log in our own eye.

What do you think I believe, Dan1988. Can you please point out, from what I said, what is not true?

And I am not sure what you mean by putting faith in Darwin. Of course not! Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, nobody comes to the Father except through Him. You know that, I know that, so I really have no idea what you mean.

I mean you have this unhealthy fascination with unproven theories. To you they are theories but to me they are Satanic lies from the pits of hell. I'm looking for this log in my eye, which you keep mentioning but I can't find it and you're incapable of showing me the supposed fault with my understanding.

I don't know about you, but I need to see proof and solid factual evidence for something before I put my faith in it. So far your theories have remained stillborn and unproven, so there's no comparison between the worldview which has a rock solid foundation and the one built on a foundation of straw.

 

[olgamc]

I think the quotes got mixed up. But Adam and eves parents were not elected for a purpose. Or they at least were not the first ones chosen by God for a purpose. That purpose being outlined in Genesis 1:26-28, image bearers are to subdue and rule.

Ok, so in Adam’s time some people (Adam and Eve) were image bearers, and other people were not image bearers. The first category was given the purpose to subdue and rule, and the second category was not. Correct?

Ok. Were all children of Adam and Eve image bearers? How about children of Cain with his non-image bearing wife? Image bearers or not? How about children of two non-image bearers?

 

[olgamc]

I mean you have this unhealthy fascination with unproven theories. To you they are theories but to me they are Satanic lies from the pits of hell. I'm looking for this log in my eye, which you keep mentioning but I can't find it and you're incapable of showing me the supposed fault with my understanding.

I don't know about you, but I need to see proof and solid factual evidence for something before I put my faith in it. So far your theories have remained stillborn and unproven, so there's no comparison between the worldview which has a rock solid foundation and the one built on a foundation of straw.

Ok Dan1988, then let’s close this argument. If to you evolution is satanic lies from the pits of hell, then I agree with you wholeheartedly, believe the Bible and only the Bible and do not read or listen to anything remotely related to evolution at all.

 

[olgamc]

The Bible doesn't say "from one man". The Greek just says "from one", which is why KJV has "blood", some don't have any word at all.

But what I'm saying is that, Paul's goal is to speak concepts that are theologically true. That's what he's inspired by God to do.

Paul's goal is not to make statements that, must be scientifically verifiable, or they are otherwise wrong.

If Paul says that all nations are of God, it doesn't matter if he doesn't know about Australia. Theologically his statement is still true. Even if from a scientific stance, someone could theoretically go back in a time machine and correct him by informing him of aboriginals that he didn't know about in the nation of Australia (which wouldnt have existed back then, but I hope you get the point).

It's ok if Paul didn't know about nations on the other side of the planet. Because the truth that Paul is speaking is not something dependent upon scientific accuracy.

I agree that Paul is speaking theologically, but that does not exclude that he can also be correct genetically. But ok, let’s focus on theological narrative.

If Adam was the first person created in God’s image, then Adam’s grandma was not in God’s image? So not all people are made in God’s image?

Sin entered the world through Adam. Which part of the world? The spiritual children of Adam, or everyone? If Adam’s grandma is not made in God’s image, can she become his spiritual child?

If one man Jesus saves the world, which part of the world does He save? The spiritual children of Adam, or everyone? Does Adam’s grandma get saved?

If God created all nations, but not all people are spiritual descendants of Adam, does that mean that God creates people not in His image who cannot be saved?

Or, if you don’t have to be Adam’s spiritual child in order to be sinful, than you don’t necessarily become a child of God after you are saved?

See what I mean? I don’t think you can take the Bible purely theologically, just like you can’t take it purely scientifically. I think it’s a bit of both, I really do.

 

[davetaff]

I agree that Paul is speaking theologically, but that does not exclude that he can also be correct genetically. But ok, let’s focus on theological narrative.

If Adam was the first person created in God’s image, then Adam’s grandma was not in God’s image? So not all people are made in God’s image?

Sin entered the world through Adam. Which part of the world? The spiritual children of Adam, or everyone? If Adam’s grandma is not made in God’s image, can she become his spiritual child?

If one man Jesus saves the world, which part of the world does He save? The spiritual children of Adam, or everyone? Does Adam’s grandma get saved?

If God created all nations, but not all people are spiritual descendants of Adam, does that mean that God creates people not in His image who cannot be saved?

Or, if you don’t have to be Adam’s spiritual child in order to be sinful, than you don’t necessarily become a child of God after you are saved?

See what I mean? I don’t think you can take the Bible purely theologically, just like you can’t take it purely scientifically. I think it’s a bit of both, I really do.

Hi organic thank you for your post lets get one thing strait Adam was destroyed in the flood because he was contaminated by the angles that cohabited with the the women so the first Adam died in the flood so there was no man in the image of God so God began a new creation with Noah and his descendants and the result was Israel the son of God

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt

So Israel is Gods son and as such would be the image of his Father but Israel went terribly wrong so God began a new creation with his son Jesus Christ

‭‭2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV‬‬
[17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. | English Standard Version Revision 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

bible.com

The whole of scripture is about God creating man ( mankind ) in his image and that man is Jesus Christ as stated in scripture.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high

Love and Peace
Daveo

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree that Paul is speaking theologically, but that does not exclude that he can also be correct genetically. But ok, let’s focus on theological narrative.

If Adam was the first person created in God’s image, then Adam’s grandma was not in God’s image? So not all people are made in God’s image?

Sin entered the world through Adam. Which part of the world? The spiritual children of Adam, or everyone? If Adam’s grandma is not made in God’s image, can she become his spiritual child?

If one man Jesus saves the world, which part of the world does He save? The spiritual children of Adam, or everyone? Does Adam’s grandma get saved?

If God created all nations, but not all people are spiritual descendants of Adam, does that mean that God creates people not in His image who cannot be saved?

Or, if you don’t have to be Adam’s spiritual child in order to be sinful, than you don’t necessarily become a child of God after you are saved?

See what I mean? I don’t think you can take the Bible purely theologically, just like you can’t take it purely scientifically. I think it’s a bit of both, I really do.

The Bible doesn't say that Adam was the first man made in God's image. It says that humanity was made in God's image. That's all of us.

Sin entered the world, that is all of creation (even if Moses didn't know that earth was a sphere).
.
Jesus saves all sinners that are in relationship with Him.
.
God created humanity in His image, not just some of us.

Through Adam, sin entered the. World and death through sin. No human being is separate from sin.

And no, I don't see what you mean. I mean this in the nicest way that I can say it. I think your theology is all over the place and it's a little hard to follow. So I'll just try to explain:

God created humanity in His image. Not just Adam and Eve.

Through Adam, sin entered the world. That's everything, all of creation, even if Moses didn't know of native Americans.

And because sin entered the world, all of mankind is subject to sin.
.
If people lived and died before Adam, they were not subject to sin because sin had not entered the world.

So Adams grandma, if she died before Adam sinned, she wouldn't be held accountable for her actions no more would a fish in the water or any other living thing.

And we do not need to be biological offspring of Adam to sin. Sin spreads supernaturally from creation to all of mankind. Just as we do not need to be a biological child of Jesus to be saved.

 

[Apple Sky]

Hi organic thank you for your post lets get one thing strait Adam was destroyed in the flood because he was contaminated by the angles that cohabited with the the women so the first Adam died in the flood so there was no man in the image of God so God began a new creation with Noah and his descendants and the result was Israel the son of God

Surely you mean Adam's seed as Adam didn't die in the flood & God chose Noah & his family as they were the only ones who's DNA was still in tact.

Were Adam and Eve alive when the flood of Noah came?​

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Were-Adam-and-Eve-alive-w...



30 Jun 2023 — No! Adam died long before Noah's flood. Adam lived 930 years and he died (Genesis 5:5). Noah was a son of Lamech.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so in Adam’s time some people (Adam and Eve) were image bearers, and other people were not image bearers. The first category was given the purpose to subdue and rule, and the second category was not. Correct?

Ok. Were all children of Adam and Eve image bearers? How about children of Cain with his non-image bearing wife? Image bearers or not? How about children of two non-image bearers?

God created humanity in God's image. Not just Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 is not talking about Adam and Eve.

Oh I see what you mean. I'll correct myself. Adam and Eve are the first priestly elect, instructed to work and keep Gods holy space, Eden. That's the holy space of God's creation.

Humanity more broadly was to subdue and rule.

Sorry for the confusion there, hope that helps.

All of humanity was created in God's image. That's everyone. Inside and outside of Eden. Every person before or after Adam. Every single human being. No exceptions. All of us, for all time. All people of all nations. Including Adams grandmother if she was still alive.

Remember that the Bible isn't a biology text book. God can create something supernatural, without needing to form it out of clay. God can give humanity a divine status, regardless of if they are physically already existent or not.


I'll put it this way. There's a passage where the psalmist asks God to create in him a clean heart. So is the psalmist asking God to do heart surgery? No. Creation doesn't have to be a biological or material thing. So when God creates humanity in His image, it's not about biology. It's not about anatomy. It's not about genetics or geneologies.

Imago dei is a supernatural status. It is not bound by physical material limits.

 

[davetaff]

Hi so we are all children of God and we are being instructed by children of God so can we rely on that instruction how many of us check out what the priest in the pulpit has told us is it correct we know Gods word is always correct and can be relied on.
I was taught in church that Adam and eve was one man and one woman but on reading my bible I find this is not true Adam and Eve are a whole multitude of people I was taught there were three wise men this also is not true the bible dose not state how many there were it jest says wise men so I have to ask my self how much more is false information.
So it's only Gods word that counts so what ever we are told check it out against the word of God.

Love and Peace
Dave