Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

9Rock9 · Jan 27, 2026

So, I have recently become convinced of theistic evolution and see Genesis as mytho-history.

Something I am still wrestling with is the extent of the Bible's infallibility.

I think the Bible is true in everything it teaches, and contains no errors (aside from perhaps scribal errors) but that doesn't mean we ought to impose our modern 21st Century assumptions onto the text. The Scriptures, are first, and foremost, a theological text. I do accept most of the accounts in the OT as having actually happened and many figures mentioned as being real people, but I also recognize the Bible also was written under the author's cultural context and uses figurative language and embellishments.

However, I would still say I am affirm the Evangelical view of inerrancy and the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. I just don't think evolution and non-literal understanding of the text contradict a high view of Scriptures

I've seen some Christians claim the Bible is infallible only in matters of faith and practice, and tbh, I'm not sure where I land.

What about you?

stevevw · Jan 27, 2026

I think some positions on Genesis are hard to defend when its strict literalism. The counter evidence is everywhere and you have to keep coming up with explanations as to how this is not a reality. Theres a lot of cognitive dissonance going on and its hard to justify.

In some ways the bible is not just the truth but is the prerequisit for truth. In other words it is the ultimate basis for the truth and reality itself. Deeper than we can understand.

So when we are talking about empirical science this goes way deeper and into the pre conditions for the creation of the objective world we see. So it doesn't really matter because the bible is not attempting to account for an objective reality. In some ways it mentions the physical aspect like the land and sky as a by product of this invisible creative power that underpins it.

So in that sense you could say that Genesis is not a scientific account or should be taken literally. But on the other hand if you understand the greater picture. That what we see in the physical world is a manifestation of Gods invisible creative power.

Then I think we don't need to worry about how old it is or how it came about. Because its the product of something beyond that. Which the authors of Genesis were trying to relay.

But also in some ways I think this is true science. If God is the creator of whatever invisible power that brings about the physical world. Then this should be the case for science when they follow through to the very beginning of what underpins the world we see. Thats when everything breaks down and begins to look more like a Mind than Matter.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 27, 2026

9Rock9 said:
So, I have recently become convinced of theistic evolution and see Genesis as mytho-history.

Something I am still wrestling with is the extent of the Bible's infallibility.

I think the Bible is true in everything it teaches, and contains no errors (aside from perhaps scribal errors) but that doesn't mean we ought to impose our modern 21st Century assumptions onto the text. The Scriptures, are first, and foremost, a theological text. I do accept most of the accounts in the OT as having actually happened and many figures mentioned as being real people, but I also recognize the Bible also was written under the author's cultural context and uses figurative language and embellishments.

However, I would still say I am affirm the Evangelical view of inerrancy and the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. I just don't think evolution and non-literal understanding of the text contradict a high view of Scriptures

I've seen some Christians claim the Bible is infallible only in matters of faith and practice, and tbh, I'm not sure where I land.

What about you?

I have no need for inerrancy as a qualifier by which to describe the literary (or even spiritual) nature of the biblical writings.

In other words, I think it's superfluous and it's not even needed, and this is the case for me quite apart from any influence which the presence of the theory of evolution has on my thinking. Science and the Bible are separate, disconnected topics and It would be enough for me to infer historically that God has simply shown up at specific moments and catalyzed the human response by which any of the biblical literature was humanly written.

The Biblical books and letters don't need to be 'perfect' to be relevant or prophetically authoritative, and those who think they do are simply .................wrong.

stevevw · Jan 27, 2026

I think we have to also imagine the time the bible was written in and that when it was written this was also based on a long period of a developing relationship with Yahweh. All that prior knowledge of God and His ways was incorporated into how the authors understood Gods creation of what they were seeing and experiencing.

There was no material or scientific paradigm. It was pure experiential and therefore spiritual. Open to the spiritual aspects. Which was the right time that God revealed Himself as the creator. Just like God had revealed Himself in previous times as the great 'I AM'. As the one true God.

I could imagine Moses looking up at the night sky and being fully open to Gods spirit coming on Him and revealing Gods invisible power. Just like John sat and wonder about the Word becoming Flesh.

Job 33:6 · Jan 28, 2026

9Rock9 said:
So, I have recently become convinced of theistic evolution and see Genesis as mytho-history.

Something I am still wrestling with is the extent of the Bible's infallibility.

I think the Bible is true in everything it teaches, and contains no errors (aside from perhaps scribal errors) but that doesn't mean we ought to impose our modern 21st Century assumptions onto the text. The Scriptures, are first, and foremost, a theological text. I do accept most of the accounts in the OT as having actually happened and many figures mentioned as being real people, but I also recognize the Bible also was written under the author's cultural context and uses figurative language and embellishments.

However, I would still say I am affirm the Evangelical view of inerrancy and the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. I just don't think evolution and non-literal understanding of the text contradict a high view of Scriptures

I've seen some Christians claim the Bible is infallible only in matters of faith and practice, and tbh, I'm not sure where I land.

What about you?

Yes it's pretty simple. The Bible is truthful in what it affirms. The Bible is not a science textbook, so we shouldn't think of Genesis as affirming scientific truths. Therefore, acceptance of evolution does not contradict Biblical inerrancy.

It's kind of like reading Joshua 10 about the sun stopping or ecclesiastes about the sun hurrying back to where it had risen, and wondering if you can affirm heliocentrism and inerrancy. The conflict only arises if someone assumes that the text is communicating scientific language.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 29, 2026

Job 33:6 said:
Yes it's pretty simple. The Bible is truthful in what it affirms. The Bible is not a science textbook, so we shouldn't think of Genesis as affirming scientific truths. Therefore, acceptance of evolution does not contradict Biblical inerrancy.

... one central issue in this discussion that I don't think some (though not all, obviously) of our fellow Christians have thought about is what is meant by the term, "inerrancy." Like some other Christian terms, particularly newer ones minted in more recent centuries among Christians, what we might mean by inerrancy tends to either allow or disallow our ability to evaluate the theory of evolution, as well as biblical hermeneutics, in a more comprehensive and balanced way.

Personally, for analytic reasons, I choose to jettison it as being superfluous and too malleable of a concept by which to conceptualize the nature of the biblical literature, especially as can be seen when one surveys the Evangelical landscape of Christian theology (see Gabriel Fackre, Ecumencial Faith in Evangelical Perspective, chapter 1, 1993). This leaves me ample room by which to engage modern science and the provisionally held statements that make up the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution (or the Extended Modern Synthesis), without directly conflicting with the actual locus of meaning we can cull from the earliest chapters of Genesis.

In my estimation, it should be enough to say that the Scriptures are reliable [enough] transmissions of the prophetic and primary historical content they convey, however piece-mealed, fragmented and/or compiled they may be through successive edits.

Job 33:6 said:
It's kind of like reading Joshua 10 about the sun stopping or ecclesiastes about the sun hurrying back to where it had risen, and wondering if you can affirm heliocentrism and inerrancy. The conflict only arises if someone assumes that the text is communicating scientific language.

.... or the conflict arises if a person doesn't respect modern science and instead bumps it off along with every other academic theory, explanation, or mode of analysis, holding the Bible as the only thing one should read in life and be informed by, an approach which, to my mind, is a form of cultic seclusion.

What I hope that other, more evangelical Christians would come to realize is that those of us who view the Theory of Evolution as cogent and explanatory about the nature of the universe don't at the same time think that "God had nothing to do with it." No, we who are Christian and affirm the theory of evolution on scientific grounds apart from the Bible still think that God had something to do with the way things are; we also remain firm on believing that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died and rose again, showing to the world by God's power that He is the Son of God, the one and only Messiah, Savior and Lord.

NBB · Jan 30, 2026

God created the universe, so the bible is more right than the evolutionist.
And theistic evolution, is just 'design by God' with extra steps.

FireDragon76 · Jan 31, 2026

9Rock9 said:
So, I have recently become convinced of theistic evolution and see Genesis as mytho-history.

The term you are looking for is mythopoetic or theopoetic. Theological or existential truth or wisdom told through stories rather than propositions.

Modern science is a description of a how, but not a why... It's even debatable if it's even the most humane way to think about the most fundamental questions one can ask in life, and I think there's something true about the early Fundamentalists rejection of "scientism", even if later Evangelicals sank into a kind of anti-intellectual tone.

9Rock9 said:
Something I am still wrestling with is the extent of the Bible's infallibility.

I think the Bible is true in everything it teaches, and contains no errors (aside from perhaps scribal errors) but that doesn't mean we ought to impose our modern 21st Century assumptions onto the text. The Scriptures, are first, and foremost, a theological text. I do accept most of the accounts in the OT as having actually happened and many figures mentioned as being real people, but I also recognize the Bible also was written under the author's cultural context and uses figurative language and embellishments.

You could say it's true in terms of faith and morals, that's the conventional, mainstream conservative Catholic or high church Protestant perspective.

Augustine and other Church fathers interpreted Christianity through a philosophical or mystical hermeneutic, and rarely accepted a literal interpretation as the most important meaning of the text. The idea of a "plain sense" reading is the result of 19th century American Evangelicalism marrying Scottish Common Sense Realism with biblical hermeneutics. But it's not the only American perspective. Jonathan Edwards tried to understanding his Reformed religious commitments through Cambridge Platonism, for instance, though perhaps not in a completely coherent manner, that is what he was gesturing towards, and it's a very different approach from later Evangelicalism.

9Rock9 said:
However, I would still say I am affirm the Evangelical view of inerrancy and the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. I just don't think evolution and non-literal understanding of the text contradict a high view of Scriptures

I've seen some Christians claim the Bible is infallible only in matters of faith and practice, and tbh, I'm not sure where I land.

What about you?

That seems like a respectable and not uncommon perspective for many evangelicals to take, so you'ld probably be in good company.

John Bauer · Jan 31, 2026

9Rock9 said:
So, I have recently become convinced of theistic evolution and see Genesis as mytho-history.

Just out of curiosity: Why theistic evolution? I suspect you haven’t been convinced of theistic chemistry, or theistic meteorology, or theistic physics, instead viewing them as just chemistry or just meteorology. As a Christian, the theistic element is a given, so why does it need to be stated?

Again, just curious.

9Rock9 said:
The scriptures are first and foremost a theological text.

Indeed. Even the history it recounts is theological. Life is theological. The whole of reality is theological.

9Rock9 said:
However, I would still say I am affirm the evangelical view of inerrancy and the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. I just don't think evolution and a non-literal understanding of the text contradict a high view of Scriptures.

I've seen some Christians claim the Bible is infallible only in matters of faith and practice, and tbh, I'm not sure where I land.

What about you?

Like you, I am an old-earth creationist who accepts the biological theory evolution. I also hold to an evangelical view of inerrancy, but not a verbal plenary inspiration view of Scripture. My view could be called something like semantic plenary inspiration, wherein Scripture as God-breathed (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos) is inerrant in everything it asserts or its propositional content, not in every individual word atomistically. Nevertheless, every linguistic feature (such as verb forms) that contributes to what the text asserts is fully trustworthy.

It may be surprising—which is the reaction of most people when they learn that I accept evolutionary science—to learn that I’m a relatively hardcore Christian fundamentalist, standing comfortably in the confessionally Reformed camp, affirming the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, among others (including the 1996 Cambridge Declaration regarding the Five Solas).

Relatedly, my acceptance of evolutionary science or the Standard Model of physics does not impact how I interpret the first three chapters of Genesis, for I believe that redemptive history and natural history have different starting points. As I see it, natural history began several billion years ago (this is the arena of evolution), whereas redemptive history dawned on the earth a few thousand years ago (this is the arena of Adam and so on). Genesis discusses the latter; it does not discuss the former.

Fervent · Jan 31, 2026

John Bauer said:
Just out of curiosity: Why theistic evolution? I suspect you haven’t been convinced of theistic chemistry, or theistic meteorology, or theistic physics, instead viewing them as just chemistry or just meteorology. As a Christian, the theistic element is a given, so why does it need to be stated?

A great point, though I think it is rather obvious why theistic is appended due to popular discourse. It is inevitable that science and faith come into conflict given the fact that science only treats efficient causes, while religion requires not only efficient but also final causes if not also requiring formal and material causes. The debate centers on evolution because Genesis literalism is where Christians have chosen to throw down the gauntlet.

John Bauer said:
It may be surprising—which is the reaction of most people when they learn that I accept evolutionary science—to learn that I’m a relatively hardcore Christian fundamentalist, standing comfortably in the confessionally Reformed camp, affirming the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, among others (including the 1996 Cambridge Declaration regarding the Five Solas).

This is surprising, though not entirely given the structure of Reformed theology as a logical consequence of total depravity/inability.

John Bauer · Jan 31, 2026

Fervent said:
This is surprising, though not entirely given the structure of Reformed theology as a logical consequence of total depravity/inability.

I don't understand. Elaborate?

Fervent · Jan 31, 2026

John Bauer said:
I don't understand. Elaborate?

All of Reformed theology becomes necessary if anyone is to be saved as soon as one accepts that man is wholly incapable of pleasing God. There can be no condition on which salvation is merited because nothing man can do can please God, atonement must be limited or universalism is true and that also comes down to a lack of ability to please God, it must be irresistable for the same reason. Salvation must be monergistic, because nothing man can do can be pleasing to God. It's a thoroughly developed logical system built on that one doctrine being explored with unrelenting fidelity.

John Bauer · Jan 31, 2026

Fervent said:
All of Reformed theology becomes necessary if anyone is to be saved as soon as one accepts that man is wholly incapable of pleasing God. There can be no condition on which salvation is merited because nothing man can do can please God, atonement must be limited or universalism is true and that also comes down to a lack of ability to please God, it must be irresistable for the same reason. Salvation must be monergistic, because nothing man can do can be pleasing to God. It's a thoroughly developed logical system built on that one doctrine being explored with unrelenting fidelity.

True, more or less (but more less).

But it seems unrelated to the OP and my post (to which you were responding), which was about approaching evolution with the commitments of evangelical Christianity. That is why I didn’t understand your response. I said people often find it surprising that I accept evolution when they know me as a hardcore fundamentalist, and you replied, “This is surprising—though not entirely, given the structure of Reformed theology as a logical consequence of total depravity.” I wasn’t seeing a connection.

Fervent · Jan 31, 2026

John Bauer said:
True, more or less (but more less).

But it seems unrelated to the OP and my post (to which you were responding), which was about approaching evolution with the commitments of evangelical Christianity and the science of evolution. That is why I didn’t understand your response. I said people often find it surprising that I accept evolution when they know me as a hardcore fundamentalist, and you replied, “This is surprising—though not entirely, given the structure of Reformed theology as a logical consequence of total depravity.” I wasn’t seeing a connection.

I see how you would have been confused, my surprise was about you particularly since generally fundamentalist reformed theology proponents tend to not entertain external sources of knowledge, though it's not entirely surprising given the systematic logical precision that is involved in the Reformed tradition.

John Bauer · Jan 31, 2026

Fervent said:
I see how you would have been confused, my surprise was about you particularly since generally fundamentalist reformed theology proponents tend to not entertain external sources of knowledge, though it's not entirely surprising given the systematic logical precision that is involved in the Reformed tradition.

As a former atheist and skeptic, I started out Baptist when I converted in my 30s, appropriating the worldview of my mentor. However, I never lost my skeptical approach or affinity for logical coherence, which I methodically applied to my beliefs over time. Consequently, my beliefs started to look increasingly Reformed—for obvious reasons you have picked up on—until finally, around ten years ago, I formally converted (URCNA). So, I wasn’t attracted to the Reformed faith; my beliefs just slowly became Reformed as I sharpened them. (In fact, one of the things I uncritically adopted from my mentor was a strong opposition to Calvinism as heretical—which didn’t last long once the “critical” fired back up after the honeymoon phase.)

But I am an outlier in my Reformed theology precisely because of that relentless and methodical application of logical coherence and internal consistency. There are things they don’t believe but I do (e.g., conditional immortality), or things they accept that I reject (e.g., substance dualism), or they hold x and y as mutually exclusive but I see them as complimentary (e.g. creation and evolution).

Fervent · Jan 31, 2026

John Bauer said:
As a former atheist and skeptic, I started out Baptist when I converted in my 30s, appropriating the worldview of my mentor. However, I never lost my skeptical approach or affinity for logical coherence, which I methodically applied to my beliefs over time. Consequently, my beliefs started to look increasingly Reformed—for obvious reasons you have picked up on—until finally, around ten years ago, I formally converted (URCNA). So, I wasn’t attracted to the Reformed faith; my beliefs just slowly became Reformed as I sharpened them. (In fact, one of the things I uncritically adopted from my mentor was a strong opposition to Calvinism as heretical—which didn’t last long once the “critical” fired back up after the honeymoon phase.)

But I am an outlier in my Reformed theology precisely because of that relentless and methodical application of logical coherence and internal consistency. There are things they don’t believe but I do (e.g., conditional immortality), or things they accept that I reject (e.g., substance dualism), or they hold x and y as mutually exclusive but I see them as complimentary (e.g. creation and evolution).

Yeah, it was that affinity for logical precision that I could see how you would be able to entertain both a propositionally inerrancy to the text and a scientific outlook on origins and other matters. I went through a similar deconstruction, though I found myself moving away from systematics from it as apophatics became increasingly attractive. I haven't made the leap to Orthodoxy yet, but I would say I'm 80% there. Though my ecclesiology is firmly protestant, which is what keeps me from joining an Orthodox church.

9Rock9 · Jan 31, 2026

John Bauer said:
Just out of curiosity: Why theistic evolution? I suspect you haven’t been convinced of theistic chemistry, or theistic meteorology, or theistic physics, instead viewing them as just chemistry or just meteorology. As a Christian, the theistic element is a given, so why does it need to be stated?

Again, just curious.

Indeed. Even the history it recounts is theological. Life is theological. The whole of reality is theological.

Like you, I am an old-earth creationist who accepts the biological theory evolution. I also hold to an evangelical view of inerrancy, but not a verbal plenary inspiration view of Scripture. My view could be called something like semantic plenary inspiration, wherein Scripture as God-breathed (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos) is inerrant in everything it asserts or its propositional content, not in every individual word atomistically. Nevertheless, every linguistic feature (such as verb forms) that contributes to what the text asserts is fully trustworthy.

It may be surprising—which is the reaction of most people when they learn that I accept evolutionary science—to learn that I’m a relatively hardcore Christian fundamentalist, standing comfortably in the confessionally Reformed camp, affirming the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, among others (including the 1996 Cambridge Declaration regarding the Five Solas).

Relatedly, my acceptance of evolutionary science or the Standard Model of physics does not impact how I interpret the first three chapters of Genesis, for I believe that redemptive history and natural history have different starting points. As I see it, natural history began several billion years ago (this is the arena of evolution), whereas redemptive history dawned on the earth a few thousand years ago (this is the arena of Adam and so on). Genesis discusses the latter; it does not discuss the former.

Interesting. I never heard of semantic plenary inspiration before, but I think I might lean towards that.

I think verbal plenary inspiration is often treated like dictation theory, where the author is just God's type-writer. I know that isn't waht VPP nor it proponents actually teach, but I think that is how it often comes across. We tend to overemphasize the divine and downplay the human element.

Fervent · Jan 31, 2026

My personal view is that the Bible is subject to the same corrosive influence as any other text, and whether there was at any time a truly inerrant version is irrelevant to our modern predicament since we're dealing with translations of constructed documents that as far as I am aware are not generally held to be divinely inspired. My confidence in the Bible comes not from it being immaculate, but from its testimony of Jesus Christ. The texts themselves are not the Word, but an icon of the Word. The literary expression of God's person, but only when the reader is also a vessel of the Spirit of God.

Sir Joseph · Feb 1, 2026

Once again I find myself dismayed having to defend the Bible's historicity and authority to professing Christians who insist on distorting or rejecting parts of it that they don't like. Just for the benefit of others who might read this thread that aren't firm in their liberal beliefs yet, let me answer the question from a Biblical, Christian perspective.

If a child or anyone unfamiliar with evolutionary theory were to read Genesis 1, the literal 6/day creation account would be obvious and easy to understand. There are excellent YouTube videos explaining the modifying adjectives and Hebew grammar that would also support the obvious, literal account interpretation. And finally, we have Moses, Jesus, Peter, Paul and James adding their affirming reference to the historical Genesis accounts.

The only reason people choose to reject the obvious reading of Genesis 1 (and the global flood of Genesis 6-9) is their desire to reconcile what they perceive as a contradiction between the Bible and science. They have succumbed to the secular world view's teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientific fact and want to somehow blend the two opposing views of supernatural creation with naturalistic evolution.

Thus was born the gap theory or day age theory that's not derived from the text, or more commonly now, a willingness to dismiss the whole Genesis account as alegory. I understand why Christians and Catholics do this because I used to be there myself - before I knew better.

I maintain that those believers who try to reconcile a naturalistic evolutionary process with a supernatural creation process are being irrational. One cannot blend two opposing processes together simply by giving it a nice name, nor can one massage the scriptures or dismiss them as alegory and claim to believe in the Bible. The two processes not only have drastically different time frames, but also have differing processes and sequences of events. In other words, it's impossible to reconcile the current Big Bang theory and neo-Darwinian evolutionary model with the Bible. God can't make a square circle, nor can he coordinate an uncoordinated event.

To those who haven't swallowed the evolutionary lies that undermine the Bible's historicity and authority, I offer a better suggestion. Why don't you try believing the Bible's inspiration, inerrancy, and literal historical accounts where warranted, and then seek out answers from Christian aplogetic sources that offer compatable explanations to the popular scientific conflict allegations. To those that do, I think you'll find that God and science are connected, and the Bible accuately relects that relationship.

The Bible/science problem isn't a contradiction between the two, it's a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence by secular scientists that are committed to having no supernatural processes within the discipline. The sad, ironic thing is that the genuine scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution is scarce to none, while the evidence for supernatural creationism is overwhelming and obvious - just like the reading of Genesis.

2PhiloVoid · Feb 1, 2026

Sir Joseph said:
Once again I find myself dismayed having to defend the Bible's historicity and authority to professing Christians who insist on distorting or rejecting parts of it that they don't like. Just for the benefit of others who might read this thread that aren't firm in their liberal beliefs yet, let me answer the question from a Biblical, Christian perspective.

If a child or anyone unfamiliar with evolutionary theory were to read Genesis 1, the literal 6/day creation account would be obvious and easy to understand. There are excellent YouTube videos explaining the modifying adjectives and Hebew grammar that would also support the obvious, literal account interpretation. And finally, we have Moses, Jesus, Peter, Paul and James adding their affirming reference to the historical Genesis accounts.

The only reason people choose to reject the obvious reading of Genesis 1 (and the global flood of Genesis 6-9) is their desire to reconcile what they perceive as a contradiction between the Bible and science. They have succumbed to the secular world view's teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientific fact and want to somehow blend the two opposing views of supernatural creation with naturalistic evolution.

Thus was born the gap theory or day age theory that's not derived from the text, or more commonly now, a willingness to dismiss the whole Genesis account as alegory. I understand why Christians and Catholics do this because I used to be there myself - before I knew better.

I maintain that those believers who try to reconcile a naturalistic evolutionary process with a supernatural creation process are being irrational. One cannot blend two opposing processes together simply by giving it a nice name, nor can one massage the scriptures or dismiss them as alegory and claim to believe in the Bible. The two processes not only have drastically different time frames, but also have differing processes and sequences of events. In other words, it's impossible to reconcile the current Big Bang theory and neo-Darwinian evolutionary model with the Bible. God can't make a square circle, nor can he coordinate an uncoordinated event.

To those who haven't swallowed the evolutionary lies that undermine the Bible's historicity and authority, I offer a better suggestion. Why don't you try believing the Bible's inspiration, inerrancy, and literal historical accounts where warranted, and then seek out answers from Christian aplogetic sources that offer compatable explanations to the popular scientific conflict allegations. To those that do, I think you'll find that God and science are connected, and the Bible accuately relects that relationship.

The Bible/science problem isn't a contradiction between the two, it's a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence by secular scientists that are committed to having no supernatural processes within the discipline. The sad, ironic thing is that the genuine scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution is scarce to none, while the evidence for supernatural creationism is overwhelming and obvious - just like the reading of Genesis.

This whole post is patronizing at best and deprecating at worst (i.e. your post, not mine). Maybe don't assume that some of us view the Bible as we do or see the nature of science as we do "simp[y because" we're ignorant, unread and uneducated. Your refraining from doing so would probably make for a better rapport between us and serve as a more functional basis for mutual Christian fellowship.

However, if you can't accommodate my suggestion above, and if you really and truly want to disabuse me of my view of the Theory of Evolution and my "less than perfect" view of the Bible, then you'll need to read all of the specific books and journal articles or other sources that have influenced my thinking on these matters and refute them chapter by chapter and page by page. I'm fully open to being proven wrong, but rather than simply being berated by someone else's mere talking points (such as yours), I require that those who want to do so fully engage and refute, in detail, every statement from every scholar that has infiltrated my little brain over the past 40 years.

If you, or other Christians here or out there in the wide, wide world can't do what I require, then we'll just have to try to concentrate instead on those things in the Bible that come after chapter 11 in Genesis and on which we can agree.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

Sinner in need of grace.

inquisitive

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Reformed

Well-Known Member

Reformed

Well-Known Member

Reformed

Well-Known Member

Reformed

Well-Known Member

Sinner in need of grace.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Similar threads