Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

I don't think the full package denies God. Why do you think that?

Because that’s how it was taught to me in biology class? Random beneficial mutations, survival of the fittest. Random is a thoughtless unintentional process by a uv light or something else that can cause a mutation. Survival of the fittest implies mistakes and vicious competition of life and death. Neither describes to me an intentional creative process by an all-knowing good God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because that’s how it was taught to me in biology class? Random beneficial mutations, survival of the fittest. Random is a thoughtless unintentional process by a uv light or something else that can cause a mutation. Survival of the fittest implies mistakes and vicious competition of life and death. Neither describes to me an intentional creative process by an all-knowing good God.

We see survival of the fittest every day. Lions chasing gazelles. But it's existence doesn't contradict God's love for us. We see vicious competition for life every day.

Also, random doesn't imply Godless. I can roll a set of dice and get random numbers, but that doesn't mean that God somehow doesn't have control over those dice.

These concepts you're describing do not actually contradict God's sovereignty and control over the world.

The lottery is random too. Random balls bouncing around in a machine with random numbers. But that doesn't contradict God's control over who wins the lottery.

Do you think that God doesn't control the lottery because it's random?

 

[Job 33:6]

Because that’s how it was taught to me in biology class? Random beneficial mutations, survival of the fittest. Random is a thoughtless unintentional process by a uv light or something else that can cause a mutation. Survival of the fittest implies mistakes and vicious competition of life and death. Neither describes to me an intentional creative process by an all-knowing good God.

Also, I wouldn't confuse the problem of evil with the theory of evolution. People do this a lot.

Millions of years of death doesn't sound like something a good God would create.

But then we turn to an infant dying of brain cancer in our modern world and say "God why would you do this?!"

As if one form of evil is problematic if it's in the past, but in today's world we seem perfectly accepting of God despite the suffering and pain we experience every day.

And the theory of evolution shouldn't take the heat for the problem of evil. Evolution doesn't say where pain and suffering came from.

It's kind of like the biological process of having a baby.

If a woman died giving birth, someone could say "well a good God wouldn't make such a dangerous proces, and then they'd become an atheist.

But as Christians, we don't think of it that way. Evolution is no different.

 

[Job 33:6]

That’s funny, I don’t read it how you read it.

Chapter 1 - plants are created on day 3, fish and birds on day 5, land animals on day 6, then adam (man or mankind).

Chapter 2:5 - certain plants that God created on day 3 had not yet sprouted because of some environmental factors and also because there was no adam (man/mankind).

2:7 - God creates adam
2:8 - God had planted a garden and made trees grow in the garden. (But trees had already been created, He is just making them grow now)
2:15 - God puts adam in the garden
2:18 - God decides to make a helper for adam
2:19 - God brings all the animals that He had already made to adam to name them and look for a helper (question - if women already existed, why wasn’t there a suitable helper through all of the animal kingdom?)
2:21 - God puts adam to sleep and while adam is sleeping God creates a woman.
2:23-24 - the concept of marriage (question - if the process of becoming one flesh already existed in homo sapiens, why is it introduced now?)

For me there is no inconsistencies the way I read it, except for the problems in brackets which arise from is “adam” one man or the whole mankind? So if this adam is Adam the man, the first man, the father of mankind, then adam can be correctly both Adam and all of us. But if Adam is not the first man, then adam must be mankind and not man.

Chapter 3 answers this because after this man/mankind and his wife sin, in 3:17 God addresses adam as u-le-adam, “the first man” or Adam.

3:20 - Adam names his wife Eve (life) because she is the mother of all the living.
3:22 - God says that adam (man/mankind) has now become like one of Us, so He decides to banish adam from the garden lest he eats from the tree of life and lives forever.

This is how sin and death enter adam (mankind) through Adam (the first man).

Also Eve says after giving birth to Cain in 4:1 “with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man child”. To me this is significant, and I wonder why this is in the Bible. Is it because she’s done something that has never been done before? I don’t know, but I wonder.

Also 2:4 part that seems to conclude chapter 1 and start a new narrative- I agree with you there, but I disagree that creation of Adam and Eve happens chronologically after day 6. I think chapter 1 is the account or an overview of what God did on each day of creation. Then that thought ends and a new thought begins - the story of the fall. Chapter 2 sets up the stage by going into more detail of day 6. So altogether all the points are chronological - God creates everything (days 1-6), Adam and Eve sin, creation gets cursed, they lose their immortality, then start making kids (chapter 4), and so on.

Adams sleep is a visionary deep sleep. And Eve isn't made from his rib. The Hebrew term is tsela, his side, as in North side and south side. That's how the word is commonly used elsewhere. Which means that Eve was made from half of Adams body. She is his mirror image.

And that's why the two ultimately become one flesh, because they were separated, but destined to be in partnership together as one.

Many people think that passage is about sex, but it doesn't say anything like that.

 

[tonychanyt]

Also Eve says after giving birth to Cain in 4:1 “with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man child”. To me this is significant, and I wonder why this is in the Bible. Is it because she’s done something that has never been done before? I don’t know, but I wonder.

See Eve has gotten a man with the HELP of the Lord and follow up there.

 

[olgamc]

It doesn't say that God brings in animals from outside the garden. It says that God formed the animals from the ground.

Exactly. It says that God had formed the animals from the ground and brought them to the man. So they had already been formed when God brought them, and it does not say where He brought them from.

‭‭Genesis 2:18-19 ESV‬‬
[18] Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” [
That's why God says "I will make". Not "I will bring the animals I've already made".

‭‭Genesis 2:18-19 NASB2020‬‬
[18] Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” [19] And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

I will make him a helper. And so God does.

Also, It logically follows that Adam is still lonely, and so Eve is produced. It doesn't say that Eve is brought in from outside the garden either.

‭‭Genesis 2:20 NASB2020‬‬
[20] The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

It doesn't say that God brings in animals from outside the garden. It says that God formed the animals from the ground.

Right.

Genesis 2:18-19 ESV‬‬
[18] Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” [19] Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

see bold - meaning they had already been formed at some time in the past, different from brought. (I had already eaten dinner when she offered me desert.) Now, I am reading this in English and I don't actually know how tenses work in Hebrew, but I am sure the translators put a lot of thought into it.

That's why God says "I will make". Not "I will bring the animals I've already made".

Of course, because God knows that He will make a helper. The question is - if, as you say, God made Eve to be a suitable helper to Adam out of some other girl that had already existed, then why was a suitable girl not found when God and Adam looked at all creation?

Also, It logically follows that Adam is still lonely, and so Eve is produced. It doesn't say that Eve is brought in from outside the garden either.

Exactly. Did I say that Eve was from outside of the garden? It doesn't say that at all. It says that Eve was made from Adam's flesh while Adam was, well, sedated.

 

[Job 33:6]

That’s funny, I don’t read it how you read it.

Chapter 1 - plants are created on day 3, fish and birds on day 5, land animals on day 6, then adam (man or mankind).

Chapter 2:5 - certain plants that God created on day 3 had not yet sprouted because of some environmental factors and also because there was no adam (man/mankind).

2:7 - God creates adam
2:8 - God had planted a garden and made trees grow in the garden. (But trees had already been created, He is just making them grow now)
2:15 - God puts adam in the garden
2:18 - God decides to make a helper for adam
2:19 - God brings all the animals that He had already made to adam to name them and look for a helper (question - if women already existed, why wasn’t there a suitable helper through all of the animal kingdom?)
2:21 - God puts adam to sleep and while adam is sleeping God creates a woman.
2:23-24 - the concept of marriage (question - if the process of becoming one flesh already existed in homo sapiens, why is it introduced now?)

For me there is no inconsistencies the way I read it, except for the problems in brackets which arise from is “adam” one man or the whole mankind? So if this adam is Adam the man, the first man, the father of mankind, then adam can be correctly both Adam and all of us. But if Adam is not the first man, then adam must be mankind and not man.

Chapter 3 answers this because after this man/mankind and his wife sin, in 3:17 God addresses adam as u-le-adam, “the first man” or Adam.

3:20 - Adam names his wife Eve (life) because she is the mother of all the living.
3:22 - God says that adam (man/mankind) has now become like one of Us, so He decides to banish adam from the garden lest he eats from the tree of life and lives forever.

This is how sin and death enter adam (mankind) through Adam (the first man).

Also Eve says after giving birth to Cain in 4:1 “with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man child”. To me this is significant, and I wonder why this is in the Bible. Is it because she’s done something that has never been done before? I don’t know, but I wonder.

Also 2:4 part that seems to conclude chapter 1 and start a new narrative- I agree with you there, but I disagree that creation of Adam and Eve happens chronologically after day 6. I think chapter 1 is the account or an overview of what God did on each day of creation. Then that thought ends and a new thought begins - the story of the fall. Chapter 2 sets up the stage by going into more detail of day 6. So altogether all the points are chronological - God creates everything (days 1-6), Adam and Eve sin, creation gets cursed, they lose their immortality, then start making kids (chapter 4), and so on.

John Walton has a nice book in his table detailing the uses of Adam.

Generic : Gen 1:26-27, 2:5, 3:22, 5:1-2.
Archetypal (representative of all mankind)(definite article): Gen 2:7, 18, 21, 22, 23
Representational agenda (definite article): Gen 2:8, 15, 16, 19, 25, 3:8, 9, 12, 20, 24
Personal name (no definite article): Gen 5:1, 3-5
Anomalous: Gen 4:1, 25
Preposition attached: Gen 2:20, 3:17, 21

So chapter 1 is generic. It's not referring to any specific person or personal name. Most translations simply say "mankind". 2:5 is similar.

Regarding Genesis 2, and why Adam had no suitable helper, the story unfolds within the garden. And so Adam is simply alone in there. Even if there were women on the other side of the planet or wherever. That's how I would respond to that.

Then Genesis 2:22 about becoming one flesh isn't about sex, so that's how I would respond to that. It's a presentation to Adam through a vision that male and female are to be partners. And this hadn't been revealed to other people because Adam and Eve were the ones elected, God chose them, not people before them.

 

[Palmfever]

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Sure, but you don't have to. You can assume evolution without believing in it. Let's talk about the utility of the theory of Evolution.

I am a Christian and worked evolution. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.

Unlike other branches of hard sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.

The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer

If the theory works in daily practical life, there is no need to reject it. There is no need to believe in it either in the sense of spiritual faith.

See also

• Adam, Eve, and evolution
• How old is the earth?.

Here is an interesting interview with Roger Penrose on consciousness from New Scientist.

Roger Penrose
Newscientist interview Nov 14,2022

...“In a certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I’m not sure what the purpose is. I don’t believe in any religion I’ve seen. So in that sense, I am an atheist. However, I would say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective.
I think the presence of consciousness, if I can put it like that, is not an accident. It’s a bit complicated to say what I really mean by this, but it has a connection with the fact that nobody knows where the fundamental constants of nature come from. If they didn’t have the particular values that they have, then maybe we wouldn’t have interesting chemistry, and then wouldn’t have life. I find that a difficult argument to make clear, because you don’t know – if the numbers were different – what kind of thing you might call life. However, it raises a question to do with conformal cyclic cosmology: do the constants get jumbled up each time you go round to the next aeon?”

If you think consciousness is beyond computation, does that mean you think it is beyond what science can discern?

No, it’s just beyond current science. My claim is much worse, much more serious, much more outrageous than “it’s quantum mechanics in the brain”. It’s not that consciousness depends on quantum mechanics, it’s that it depends on where our current theories of quantum mechanics go wrong. It’s to do with a theory that we don’t know yet.
But I think we have made some progress. There are about four mainstream views about what consciousness is, and one of them is this Orch OR idea that Hameroff and I developed. That’s a bit of a shift. People used to say it is completely crazy, but I think people take it seriously now. There are also experiments looking at phenomena to do with quantum effects and to do with effects of general anaesthetics, and there do seem to be some connections there. So it’s coming into the area of experimental confirmation or refutation; I find that exciting...

 

[Palmfever]

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Sure, but you don't have to. You can assume evolution without believing in it. Let's talk about the utility of the theory of Evolution.

I am a Christian and worked evolution. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.

Unlike other branches of hard sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.

The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer

If the theory works in daily practical life, there is no need to reject it. There is no need to believe in it either in the sense of spiritual faith.

See also

• Adam, Eve, and evolution
• How old is the earth?.

Roger Penrose
Newscientist interview Nov 14,2022

...“In a certain sense you might say that the universe has a purpose, but I’m not sure what the purpose is. I don’t believe in any religion I’ve seen. So in that sense, I am an atheist. However, I would say that there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective.
I think the presence of consciousness, if I can put it like that, is not an accident. It’s a bit complicated to say what I really mean by this, but it has a connection with the fact that nobody knows where the fundamental constants of nature come from. If they didn’t have the particular values that they have, then maybe we wouldn’t have interesting chemistry, and then wouldn’t have life. I find that a difficult argument to make clear, because you don’t know – if the numbers were different – what kind of thing you might call life. However, it raises a question to do with conformal cyclic cosmology: do the constants get jumbled up each time you go round to the next aeon?”

If you think consciousness is beyond computation, does that mean you think it is beyond what science can discern?
No, it’s just beyond current science. My claim is much worse, much more serious, much more outrageous than “it’s quantum mechanics in the brain”. It’s not that consciousness depends on quantum mechanics, it’s that it depends on where our current theories of quantum mechanics go wrong. It’s to do with a theory that we don’t know yet.
But I think we have made some progress. There are about four mainstream views about what consciousness is, and one of them is this Orch OR idea that Hameroff and I developed. That’s a bit of a shift. People used to say it is completely crazy, but I think people take it seriously now. There are also experiments looking at phenomena to do with quantum effects and to do with effects of general anaesthetics, and there do seem to be some connections there. So it’s coming into the area of experimental confirmation or refutation; I find that exciting...

 

[Job 33:6]

Exactly. It says that God had formed the animals from the ground and brought them to the man. So they had already been formed when God brought them, and it does not say where He brought them from.



Right.

see bold - meaning they had already been formed at some time in the past, different from brought. (I had already eaten dinner when she offered me desert.) Now, I am reading this in English and I don't actually know how tenses work in Hebrew, but I am sure the translators put a lot of thought into it.

Of course, because God knows that He will make a helper. The question is - if, as you say, God made Eve to be a suitable helper to Adam out of some other girl that had already existed, then why was a suitable girl not found when God and Adam looked at all creation?

Exactly. Did I say that Eve was from outside of the garden? It doesn't say that at all. It says that Eve was made from Adam's flesh while Adam was, well, sedated.

No, when God says "I will make", the statement comes before making the animals.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

That's why it specifically says that there was not found a helper suitable for him, because the animals he had just named weren't sufficient. The subject of the making, are the animals, initially.

And so in response, then God made Eve.

There's a logical inconsistency here where the text goes out of the way to note that animals were formed from the ground and Eve formed from Adam, yet you're suggesting that the animals were made in some distant land at some point in the past, beyond the garden and brought in, though the text doesn't say that.

And the Hebrew text doesn't say "had". That's just an English word inserted into the text because people are uncomfortable with perceived contradiction. NASB doesn't say "had" for example.

 

[olgamc]

We see survival of the fittest every day. Lions chasing gazelles. But it's existence doesn't contradict God's love for us. We see vicious competition for life every day.

Right. But what we see is the fallen creation. We did not see creation before sin and curse, so we don't know what it was like. But Bible talks about the new creation, and there is no vicious competition there. "I am making all things new" Rev 21:5. There is a debate regarding is He making all things new (renewing old things, making them new again) or making all new things (re-starting from scratch), but either way, if new creation is God's vision of the perfect creation, and before curse entered creation our world was perfect, and God even said "this is very good", then my soft side and my knowledge of a compassionate God would not allow the thought that God could call a brutal survival hunger game "very good". That's why Darwin abandoned God to begin with - he couldn't stomach a God that would be so brutal. I am with Darwin on that one.

Also, random doesn't imply Godless. I can roll a set of dice and get random numbers, but that doesn't mean that God somehow doesn't have control over those dice.

Well yes, I suppose I could sit here and throw an eraser at my keyboard hoping to generate the right characters, or I can just type. I choose to type. LOL I suppose God could have chosen to throw an eraser, I don't know, I wasn't there. But in chapter 1 God definitely interferes every day, and it says he "fashions" them, Isiah says "you knit me together", in Job God calls himself a potter. Fashioning (sewing), knitting, making pottery - those are all deliberate very careful and intentional activities.

These concepts you're describing do not actually contradict God's sovereignty and control over the world.

No, but they contradict God's character.

Do you think that God doesn't control the lottery because it's random?

No, I just don't think that God would create the world by using random mutations.

 

[Job 33:6]

Exactly. It says that God had formed the animals from the ground and brought them to the man. So they had already been formed when God brought them, and it does not say where He brought them from.



Right.

see bold - meaning they had already been formed at some time in the past, different from brought. (I had already eaten dinner when she offered me desert.) Now, I am reading this in English and I don't actually know how tenses work in Hebrew, but I am sure the translators put a lot of thought into it.

Of course, because God knows that He will make a helper. The question is - if, as you say, God made Eve to be a suitable helper to Adam out of some other girl that had already existed, then why was a suitable girl not found when God and Adam looked at all creation?

Exactly. Did I say that Eve was from outside of the garden? It doesn't say that at all. It says that Eve was made from Adam's flesh while Adam was, well, sedated.

A suitable helper isn't available because only Adam is in the garden.

I'm just pointing out here that, the text flows nicely:

Adam is made from the ground
Adam is lonely
God in response says that He will make a helper
God then makes animals from the ground immediately following his statement about making a helper
Adam is still lonely
God then made Eve

But what you're saying is:
Adam is made from the ground
Adam is lonely
God in response says that He will make a helper (but isn't talking about animals even though that's what he makes immediately following this statement)
The text then randomly talks about how God made animals out of the ground in the past and then God brings those animals to Adam from beyond the garden. Which is this awkward occurrence from a prior day, injected into the text without actually being stated.
Adam is still lonely because God hasn't actually begun making his helper yet, many hours or days after Adam names all the animals.
Then finally God does what He says he will do, and makes Eve.

If God was talking about making Eve, there wouldn't be this section about God making animals from the ground awkwardly injected into the middle of the text.

 

[olgamc]

Also, I wouldn't confuse the problem of evil with the theory of evolution. People do this a lot.
But then we turn to an infant dying of brain cancer in our modern world and say "God why would you do this?!"

No, in our grief we say God why would you allow this? The Bible has an answer - God allows evil in the world for 2 reasons. One, so that He can judge people based on what they did as opposed to what they could have done. Two, because He is patient and wants everyone to come to repentance.

It's kind of like the biological process of having a baby.

When does the Bible say birth become painful?

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. But what we see is the fallen creation. We did not see creation before sin and curse, so we don't know what it was like. But Bible talks about the new creation, and there is no vicious competition there. "I am making all things new" Rev 21:5. There is a debate regarding is He making all things new (renewing old things, making them new again) or making all new things (re-starting from scratch), but either way, if new creation is God's vision of the perfect creation, and before curse entered creation our world was perfect, and God even said "this is very good", then my soft side and my knowledge of a compassionate God would not allow the thought that God could call a brutal survival hunger game "very good". That's why Darwin abandoned God to begin with - he couldn't stomach a God that would be so brutal. I am with Darwin on that one.

Well yes, I suppose I could sit here and throw an eraser at my keyboard hoping to generate the right characters, or I can just type. I choose to type. LOL I suppose God could have chosen to throw an eraser, I don't know, I wasn't there. But in chapter 1 God definitely interferes every day, and it says he "fashions" them, Isiah says "you knit me together", in Job God calls himself a potter. Fashioning (sewing), knitting, making pottery - those are all deliberate very careful and intentional activities.

No, but they contradict God's character.

No, I just don't think that God would create the world by using random mutations.

"Very Good" is a broad statement. It doesn't say anything about whether or not God would view death as good or bad.

Your personal opinion might be that death sounds bad, but we see in the Bible itself that that's not necessarily the case.

These are philosophical concerns, and aren't really about the theory itself.

Psalm 104 for example, is a creation Psalm, and the psalmist seems to have no problem with lions roaring out to God for their prey. The book of Job has similar texts. Psalm 104:21 uThe young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.

God provides everything. Even food for the mighty lion.

Isaiah, unless you're referring to Psalm 139, you knit me together in my mothers womb? Not sure if that's what you are referring to. But that of course isn't about evolution.

I think you're combining the theory of evolution with the problem of evil. But these are two separate things.

The theory of evolution doesn't contradict Gods character, no more would the lottery contradict Gods character by being random. Natural selection doesn't contradict Gods character either, because God allows it to happen every day in our world today. Anyone can turn on the nature channel to see it.

The problem of evil on the other hand, could better be argued to contradict Gods character, but that's not evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, in our grief we say God why would you allow this? The Bible has an answer - God allows evil in the world for 2 reasons. One, so that He can judge people based on what they did as opposed to what they could have done. Two, because He is patient and wants everyone to come to repentance.

When does the Bible say birth become painful?

Yes, God allowing something suggests that God is in control.

So if you are ok with God allowing cancer today, what is it about allowing evolution that is problematic? Death and suffering today is no more or less brutal than anything in evolutionary history. If anything, death and suffering today is worse, with respect to mankind. Nuclear weapons and technological warfare.

If God allows death today, there's no reason that God couldn't also allow death in the past, logically speaking.

But again, the theory of evolution should not be confused with the problem of evil.

We don't reject any biological process on the basis of our emotions. I don't act like cancer isn't real because it seems as though it ought to contradict Gods character.

Because here's the truth, God allows it. And if God can allow death and suffering today, then there's no reason that He couldn't also logically allow it in the past.

Your argument against evolution is the same argument that atheists use against Christianity as a whole. There is death and suffering, a good God wouldn't allow that, therefore God must not be real. That's what they say. And you're saying the same thing. God wouldn't allow death in the past, so I guess either evolution must be false, or God isn't real. That's what you're doing.

And saying "well creation was very good" is so vague that it holds no real meaning. I mowed my lawn yesterday and it was very good, but that doesn't mean that the ladybug that got caught in the mower propellers was immortal.

 

[olgamc]

Adams sleep is a visionary deep sleep. And Eve isn't made from his rib. The Hebrew term is tsela, his side, as in North side and south side. That's how the word is commonly used elsewhere. Which means that Eve was made from half of Adams body. She is his mirror image.

Ok, but God closes the place with flesh?

And that's why the two ultimately become one flesh, because they were separated, but destined to be in partnership together as one.

Many people think that passage is about sex, but it doesn't say anything like that.

Then why is the word flesh used? The fun part that leads to a baby, and the baby, is literally two people becoming one flesh. Unless of course there's twins, in which case it's two people becoming one flesh twice.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, in our grief we say God why would you allow this? The Bible has an answer - God allows evil in the world for 2 reasons. One, so that He can judge people based on what they did as opposed to what they could have done. Two, because He is patient and wants everyone to come to repentance.

When does the Bible say birth become painful?

It doesn't say when birth became painful. It says "I will increase your pain", not "there will be pain from non-pain" and it says that this pain is in childbearing, as in, the gestational period, not giving birth.

It's saying that, once Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden, Eves emotional pain will be increased by the dangers and challenges beyond the garde.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, but God closes the place with flesh?

Then why is the word flesh used? The fun part that leads to a baby, and the baby, is literally two people becoming one flesh. Unless of course there's twins, in which case it's two people becoming one flesh twice.

The Hebrew word here for flesh, may also be translated as "person", "mankind", "man", "body", meat, etc.

This is the Bible, its not an episode of Netflix's Bridgerton. It's not about sex.

Adam was split in half in his vision, its saying that the two belong together. It's theology, not health ed class.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, but God closes the place with flesh?

Then why is the word flesh used? The fun part that leads to a baby, and the baby, is literally two people becoming one flesh. Unless of course there's twins, in which case it's two people becoming one flesh twice.

I'd recommend the following video to help reveal some of the old testament context related to death before the fall:

 

[olgamc]

So if you are ok with God allowing cancer today, what is it about allowing evolution that is problematic?

Today is after the fall. Creation was before the fall. I don't have a problem with allowing evolution. I have a problem with the part of the evolution theory that says that creation was not a careful crafting but some random process. I disagree with the part that says that man evolved from an ape. I disagree with God calling survival of the fittest "very good". Did God create divorce or did God allow divorce? He allowed divorce because people's hearts where hard, but it was not like this from the beginning.

We don't reject any biological process on the basis of our emotions.

I don't reject a biological process. I just don't agree that the biological processes were random.

Because here's the truth, God allows it. And if God can allow death and suffering today, then there's no reason that He couldn't also logically allow it in the past.

He didn't need to allow it, because He didn't create it. He created a choice. Man chose to learn evil. Man did not know evil before. Sin entered humankind. Creation got cursed, broken, damaged. Now creation is groaning, processes going wrong, a mutation process that was designed to be good now creates cancer cells, and Cain continues to murder Abel. None of that could have happened until AFTER the fall, because before the fall God looked at creation and said "this is very good". If God created evil and looked at it and called it good - that's a house divided.

Your argument against evolution is the same argument that atheists use against Christianity as a whole. There is death and suffering, a good God wouldn't allow that, therefore God must not be real. That's what they say. And you're saying the same thing. God wouldn't allow death in the past, so I guess either evolution must be false, or God isn't real. That's what you're doing.

Yes, aspects of evolution theory are not true. That is what I am saying, yes. How do I know that? Because it's a theory by a man who can be wrong, and parts of the theory violate the Scripture, which is inerrant. It's a pretty decent theory, but it's a human theory. When in doubt, trust Scripture. So when it looks like I am doing the same thing as atheists, I am actually not.
Atheist: the theory of evolution actually happened it it's entirety, therefore scripture must be wrong.
Me: scripture is correct, therefore the theory of evolution could not have happened exactly how it is formulated.

And saying "well creation was very good" is so vague that it holds no real meaning. I mowed my lawn yesterday and it was very good, but that doesn't mean that the ladybug that got caught in the mower propellers was immortal.

We are just arguing two opinions here Job 33:6. And this has nothing to do with the original question, we are way off topic now. We had already decided that we can be Christian and believe in aspects of evolution. Which aspects we believe in we agreed to disagree, so let's do that ok?