Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

The Barbarian · Sunday at 6:09 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
That is why I like to go back to the first Planck unit. At that point, energy has just been converted into something physical. Then we have quarks forming atoms, atoms forming elements, and everything that follows. To me, that entire progression is evolution.

Good point. That's why Darwin didn't like the word. He used it once in On the Origin of Species. The word means "unrolling" as in opening a scroll. So there's "stellar evolution" about the ways stars form, age, and die. And I suppose the evolution of matter. This is why I prefer "biological evolution" to keep it consistent with evolutionary theory.

Firstlightdawn said:
Of course Darwin hijacked the word to use it to draw attention to his theory of natural selection.

No. He used it once, in the last sentence of his book. He preferred "descent with modification", a more accurate and less misleading term.

Firstlightdawn said:
But that does not mean we can not take it back from them.

You're right. Please do. This is an important point, one most laymen don't understand very well. Thanks for bringing it up.

evolution(n.)

1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

Evolution - Etymology, Origin & Meaning

"an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio)… See origin and meaning of evolution.

www.etymonline.com

The Barbarian · Sunday at 6:11 PM

NBB said:
The simple fact that God is a person

For Trinitarian Christians, three persons in one being.

Trinitarianism is the teaching that God is triune, that He has revealed Himself to be three co-equal and co-eternal Persons. For a detailed biblical presentation of the Trinity, please see our article on what the Bible teaches about the Trinity. The purpose of this article is to discuss the importance of Trinitarianism in regard to salvation and the Christian life.

What is Trinitarianism? Is Trinitarianism biblical? | GotQuestions.org

What is Trinitarianism? Is Trinitarianism biblical? Is the doctrine of the Trinity found in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

John Bauer · Sunday at 7:56 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
I am presenting Hasidic views.

Then you are presenting an interpretation, which makes your comparison to Ezekiel fall apart.

Firstlightdawn said:
Actually, I should have just said Luke. What is in the Bible that is not written by Judah?

Quite a lot, actually. For starters: Moses—a Levite. He wrote a fair bit of the Bible, I hear.

Firstlightdawn said:
You are the expert, you tell me how much the oral tradition has an impact on what we call the written word of God today. … Do you understand without the ORAL tradition your Bible would be very, very different? You do not seem to understand that at all, even though I bring it up on almost every post.

I refuse to engage you on the issue, not because I don’t understand it but because it’s irrelevant. I don’t chase red herrings.

Firstlightdawn said:
I’m going to explain this once. The principal (Ludwig Zuber) Born in Leimen, Germany and the director of my high school were Holocaust survivors. To them, the words “Jew” and “Jewish” were deeply offensive because of how those words were used against them.

[Discussion truncated for irrelevance.]

I can understand and respect your desire to avoid terminology that your teachers experienced as hurtful. However, as compassionate as that may be, none of it is relevant to the fact that there were more than just two characters in the Bible who were “not Judah.” I already listed several. I could add Jonah to that list.

That being said, I have no objection to using language that is both respectful and precise. In biblical discussion, the most accurate and neutral term for the covenant people is “Israel” or “Israelite,” since it includes all twelve tribes and avoids modern ethnic baggage and historical slurs. “Judahite” can be used when the tribe of Judah specifically is meant.

If we use Israelite for the covenant people and Judahite when we mean the tribe specifically, we can remain both respectful and accurate while still taking the whole Bible seriously, genealogies included.

Nevertheless, the historical claim still needs to be accurate. Judah is only one tribe within Israel, and many central biblical figures are not from Judah—Moses, Samuel, Elisha, Ezekiel, or even the apostle Paul (in addition to the other ones I named). The biblical witness is broader than Judah.

Firstlightdawn said:
I do not know why you can not do your own research and why you ask me to do it for you.

I have never asked you to do research for me. You volunteered every time—and pointlessly, because it is stuff I already understand.

Firstlightdawn said:
So I just type it into AI and give it to you.

Then why was it addressing you?

Firstlightdawn said:
You want to argue with me but your argument is with AI not me.

No, my argument is with you—clearly. AI models are not sensitive to terminology; they don’t have emotions.

Firstlightdawn · Sunday at 9:06 PM

The Barbarian said:
It's disrespectful to him to consider him a mere designer.

That is why I like to go back to the first planck unit. We have energy that has been converted to something physical. Then we have quirks that make Atoms, that make Elements and so on. For me that is all evolution.

The Barbarian · Sunday at 9:23 PM

NBB said:
Well i disagree Sir,, God made things with intelligence

Yep. It's just that evolutionists accept the way He did it.

NBB said:
that is why animals works like machines

They don't. They work like self-sustaining chemical reactions.

NBB said:
we kn ow you have to be smart to design a machine

But so far, we haven't been able to design a cell from scratch. That's harder. Might be impossible. As God shows us, evolution is much more efficient at producing these self-sustaining systems.

NBB said:
also really computer evolutionary things are fed things and directed at a goal,

No more than living things are directed at a goal. Natural selection, like genetic algorithms, only preserves useful mutations. In many cases, engineers don't even know exactly why an evolved solution works.

Firstlightdawn · Sunday at 9:30 PM

John Bauer said:
Quite a lot, actually. For starters: Moses—a Levite. He wrote a fair bit of the Bible, I hear.

Jacob (Israel) is the father of the twelve tribes, including Judah.
So the correct term for the covenant family is Israel,
even if people often say “Judah” and understand the intent.

We are talking about the people under the Abrahamic covenant.
Jesus said He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

From Adam to Jesus is understood as a 4,000‑year covenant line. After that comes the 2,000‑year time of the nations (the church age), representing the descendants of Adam who are not descended from Abraham.

Firstlightdawn · Sunday at 9:35 PM

The Barbarian said:
But so far, we haven't been able to design a cell from scratch. That's harder. Might be impossible. As God shows us, evolution is much more efficient at producing these self-sustaining systems.

We know very little. We do know enough to give praise, honor and glory to God.

NBB · 2026-02-09T00:52:07-0600

The Barbarian said:
Yep. It's just that evolutionists accept the way He did it.

They don't. They work like self-sustaining chemical reactions.

But so far, we haven't been able to design a cell from scratch. That's harder. Might be impossible. As God shows us, evolution is much more efficient at producing these self-sustaining systems.

No more than living things are directed at a goal. Natural selection, like genetic algorithms, only preserves useful mutations. In many cases, engineers don't even know exactly why an evolved solution works.

Ahteists love evolution, people like Dawkins, because they give them a reason for existence, without God, more wrong than that you can't be in life sorry.

PrincetonGuy · 2026-02-09T02:16:32-0600

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.

Reformed theology was given birth in the 16th century when the absurd notion that God is absolutely was conceived and became a popular belief in some circles of believers. If God is absolutely sovereign, the whole of Reformed theology is necessarily true.

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?

The belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is a human concept rather than a biblical teaching.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-09T05:35:45-0600

PrincetonGuy said:
The belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is a human concept rather than a biblical teaching.

What the Bible actually claims is different and more grounded:

God speaks through prophets, apostles, and inspired writings
Scripture is trustworthy for teaching, correction, and instruction
God’s word accomplishes His purposes
The message is reliable because God is reliable

o_mlly · 2026-02-09T07:30:37-0600

The Barbarian said:
As God shows us, evolution is much more efficient at producing these self-sustaining systems.

Indirect methods are always less efficient than direct in causing an effect. So, creationism, God directly creating different kinds of life, is more efficient than His doing so through secondary causes as theistic evolutionists claim.

How are non-biologists to judge the truth value in the scientific claims of macroevolutionists?

Are their claims intuitively sensible?
Are the claims for macroevolution events sufficiently supported by a preponderance of evidence?
Are all the scientific experts in agreement?
Is their evidence based on direct observations or on arcane indirect methods?
Are the inferences from their available evidence more contrived (opinions) than derived (logical)?
Are there better alternative theories based on all observations?
Do they propose their claims as still within the domain of doubt (subjunctive mode) or as dogmatically true (imperative mode)?

Job 33:6 · 2026-02-09T11:26:56-0600

o_mlly said:
Are all the scientific experts in agreement?

Yes.

o_mlly said:
Are there better alternative theories based on all observations?

No.

A good example of transitional fossil, as noted before, would be something like tiktaalik:

Aside from the theory of evolution, there is no other scientific theory that accounts for the fossil succession. And some 99% of experts are in agreement on this.

o_mlly · 2026-02-09T12:26:24-0600

Job 33:6 said:
Aside from the theory of evolution, there is no other scientific theory that accounts for the fossil succession. And some 99% of experts are in agreement on this.

Hmm?. In the same post you state "All experts are in agreement" and later reduce the claim to "99% of experts". It appears you're offering us merely your opinion.

Fossil succession? Cambrian explosion? Soft-tissues found in dinosaur bones?

Job 33:6 · 2026-02-09T12:28:07-0600

o_mlly said:
Hmm?. In the same post you state "All experts are in agreement" and later reduce the claim to "99% of experts". It appears you're offering us merely your opinion.

Fossil succession? Cambrian explosion? Soft-tissues found in dinosaur bones?

Yes, quite a reduction, isn't it. Excellent observation.

River Jordan · 2026-02-09T12:33:42-0600

NBB said:
Evolution can't create anything

Except new species.

And new functional nucleotide sequences.

o_mlly · 2026-02-09T12:45:13-0600

Job 33:6 said:
Yes, quite a reduction, isn't it. Excellent observation.

It reveals one who is merely opining but does not admit it as such. What is gratuitously claimed may just as easily be dismissed.

River Jordan · 2026-02-09T12:49:29-0600

o_mlly said:
How are non-biologists to judge the truth value in the scientific claims of macroevolutionists?

The same way they would evaluate anything, by learning the subject enough to form an informed opinion about it.

o_mlly said:
Are their claims intuitively sensible?

That's not always a good indicator of truth. It seems intuitive that the sun orbits the earth by the way it looks like the sun moves across the sky every day, but it isn't true.

o_mlly said:
Are the claims for macroevolution events sufficiently supported by a preponderance of evidence?

Most laypeople aren't in a position to tell. Most people aren't even aware of most of the data, let alone how it's analyzed. That gets back to my initial point that if someone wants to judge evolutionary biology, they're going to have to study it first.

o_mlly said:
Are all the scientific experts in agreement?

There isn't 100% agreement on most things, even with heliocentrism (see Gerardus Bouw, PhD).

o_mlly said:
Is their evidence based on direct observations or on arcane indirect methods?

You're still ignorant of the field of experimental evolution, even though I've posted about it to you before? Huh.

o_mlly said:
Are the inferences from their available evidence more contrived (opinions) than derived (logical)?

We're back to my first point that in order to do that a person first has to learn the subject.

o_mlly said:
Are there better alternative theories based on all observations?

Since there are no alternative theories to evolutionary theory this is a moot point.

o_mlly said:
Do they propose their claims as still within the domain of doubt (subjunctive mode) or as dogmatically true (imperative mode)?

This is one of the funnier things creationists do, where they point to scientists using tentative words like "likely" or "probably" as an excuse to wave away inconvenient information while also complaining when scientists speak in more certain terms, accusing them of being "dogmatic". It's almost like denialists will object no matter how scientists describe their work.

But then denial of evolution has never been about the science, has it?

Job 33:6 · 2026-02-09T13:39:02-0600

o_mlly said:
It reveals one who is merely opining but does not admit it as such.

If you prefer citations, here is an example article:

Evolution accepted by a majority of Americans at last | National Center for Science Education

ncse.ngo

Public and Scientists Express Strikingly Different Views about Science-Related Issues

Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens.

www.pewresearch.org

"The scientific community’s level of acceptance of evolution is upward of 98%, according to a 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center"

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-09T18:38:03-0600

o_mlly said:
.Indirect methods are always less efficient than direct in causing an effect. So, creationism, God directly creating different kinds of life, is more efficient than His doing so through secondary causes as theistic evolutionists claim.

You miss the point that God all in all and everything in time and space is united as one. The beginning is what we are able to observe. Because God Himself has no begining but He was there and we have a beginning. What existed before the beginning is beyond our ability to know. Because of our limitations.

I like to use words like entanglement and singularity and even evolution but people can not agree on what those words mean and they try to narrow down their meaning. Evolution is infinite small to infinite big and everything in between,.Not just "natural selection" which is a very, very, very small part of what that word means.

The written word has a beginning that Jesus talks about. When the pen touches the paper and makes a mark that is the beginning. Every stroke of the pen begins with the pen touching the paper. But fore the beginning of the universe we use the Planck unit. Which is time and distance. The ration between the two is 1.98.

I had a dream when I was 8 years old. God showed me the middle of the universe and He showed me where the universe began. There was nothing in either place other than space.

In Hasidic thought, “sparks in the beginning” refers to the nitzotzot—divine sparks embedded in creation during the earliest stages of existence. This is the oral tradition before the written word of God.

o_mlly said:
"All experts are in agreement"

A claim is scientific only if there is some possible observation that could show it to be wrong. If no imaginable test could contradict it, then it isn’t science; it’s philosophy, theology, or metaphysics.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-09T18:39:40-0600

o_mlly said:
.Indirect methods are always less efficient than direct in causing an effect. So, creationism, God directly creating different kinds of life, is more efficient than His doing so through secondary causes as theistic evolutionists claim.

You miss the point that God all in all and everything in time and space is united as one. The beginning is what we are able to observe. Because God Himself has no begining but He was there and we have a beginning. What existed before the beginning is beyond our ability to know. Because of our limitations.

I like to use words like entanglement and singularity and even evolution but people can not agree on what those words mean and they try to narrow down their meaning. Evolution is infinite small to infinite big and everything in between,.Not just "natural selection" which is a very, very, very small part of what that word means.

The written word has a beginning that Jesus talks about. When the pen touches the paper and makes a mark that is the beginning. Every stroke of the pen begins with the pen touching the paper. But fore the beginning of the universe we use the Planck unit. Which is time and distance. The ration between the two is 1.98.

I had a dream when I was 8 years old. God showed me the middle of the universe and He showed me where the universe began. There was nothing in either place other than space.

In Hasidic thought, “sparks in the beginning” refers to the nitzotzot—divine sparks embedded in creation during the earliest stages of existence. This is the oral tradition before the written word of God.

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?

Crabby Old White Guy

evolution(n.)​

Crabby Old White Guy

Reformed

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Active Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

evolution(n.)