A Theological debate???

[Ioustinos]

What would or what could be some theological problems if the Genesis account is a metaphor for evolution?



I have some thoughts, but I would like to hear if anyone else has thought about this question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The problems are several. (Tho' I do think evolution is the way God did things.)

1. Jesus specifically referred to Adam. Is Jesus wrong?
2. Paul specifically referred to Adam. Is Paul wrong? Uninspired?
3. Those geneologies seem pretty specific with specific and different lifespans, etc.
4. What about physical death?
5. Why was it written that way?
6. What is the point of the early chapters of Genesis if it is not literal?

Answering the last one first: the same point as if it is literal. That God caused and ordained the universe. That God cares especially about Man. God established a relationship with Man. Man blew it and was punished -- ergo, God cares about righteousness.

So, why was it written that way? My answer to others has been "What else would God have told Moses even if evolution were true?" Consider, "Hey Moses, ready to write Genesis chapter 4379? Title it Abiogenesis." I don't think so. As written it is sufficient for us to know the essentials. To wit, "God did it" and "God cares about Man and righteousness."

What about physical death? I believe that Adam brought only spiritual Death and that Jesus brought only spiritual Life. This, to me, is consistent with phrases in the Bible such as "die to yourselves" or "having died to this world...". These phrases do not suggest that we ought to commit physical suicide or that we did in fact physically die when Christ did. These references are spiritual in nature. As to physical bodies in eternity: They seem to be indicated, but they need not be construed to be part of salvation, just an added bonus. Also, what exactly is the nature of our new bodies? We don't know. If they are entire spiritual in nature should we find that insufficient? If it is sufficient for God, it ought to sufficient for us? Consider also that God said, "in the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die." Did they? Yes, spiritually. It is clear that the day they ate thereof they did not die physically. Anyway, we could go on and on and round and round about this.

Were Paul wrong or uninspired? No. One might reference a metaphor, think it literal, and still convey the truths of God. Paul knew what Paul knew. And God leaves us to the realities of our times. Should it suggest that Newton was less of a Christian because he didn't know about quarks? Are we less than saved since we don't know what will be known 200 yrs from now? Don't think so.

Jesus? Jesus deliberately limited himself in many ways in his life on earth. There is no reason in that time and place for him to know what God knew about creation. It doesn't offset his truths about following God. Perhaps, he did know. What would he have said differently to the woman at the well? To Nicodemus? Nothing.

The hardest question is "why the specific geneologies?" I don't know. Perhaps to specify God's love and interest in Man.

I may be wrong on some or all these points. None of it changes how I live my life dedicated to Christ.

God bless,
Tinker

 

[Ioustinos]

My main question is: when does the soul come into being?


Since we all evolved from plant like material did the plants have souls? When did God decide to give man a soul? Which type of man did God decide to begin to give souls that would need salvation? Did it begin with the primates (apes, monkeys, etc.)? When?


Also we know Jesus Christ came in the likeness of man, but which mankind? According to evolution there have been several "levels" of mankind? And if it is our "level of mankind", why?

 

[Tinker Grey]

According to Gerald Schroeder in The Science of God (in which he attempts to reconcile the creation story with evolution), Genesis 1 contains two words for create. Only two places contain the word that signifies "creation from nothing". All other uses of the word signify a simpler making: "from something".

The first occurrence of "creation from nothing" is when God said "Let there be light." (Gen. 1:3) The second occurrence is in Genesis 1:17 where God created man. Apparently, according to the jewish author, the significance of the creation of the soul of Man "neshema".

In other words, when ever God established a relationship with Man, He gave Man a soul. When did that precisely occur? Who cares. (Pardon my glibness.) The point is that God established a relationship with Man and the special creation of Man was the endowment with a soul.

For whom did Jesus die? For any man, woman, or child from the point at which God gave Man a soul. Are there several "levels of mankind" from that point til now? I don't know. Does it matter? Even if several levels of mankind had a soul, I would posit that Jesus died for any that had a soul. All are mankind (by which term I embrace all who have a soul).

Jesus came in likeness as a man. He came in our "level" of mankind since 2000 years is not sufficient to posit that that "breed" of man could not procreate with this breed of man.

Please understand that these questions are not a problem for Christians who think evolution is the way God did it. Quite frankly, my God is big enough, gracious enough and merciful enough for all of mankind, past, present, and future.

Tinker

 

[Ioustinos]

I apologize for my lack of scientifical terms. But for arguments sake let us say that the first level of "ape-man" had a soul. How different from humans today is the first "ape-man"?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know.

Tinker

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jesaiah
I apologize for my lack of scientifical terms. But for arguments sake let us say that the first level of "ape-man" had a soul. How different from humans today is the first "ape-man"?

I don't know.

I have assumed for some time that, one day, God looked at a very early example of "homo sapiens", which was an animal, practically dust. Then he breathed *life* into it - not the ability to move, but the *soul*.

If you have ever seen an animal in pain, you may notice that, in many cases, the animal doesn't seem to *care* that it's in pain. Once you stop stepping on the cat's tail, it still presumably aches... but the cat doesn't *care*. When we acquired the knowledge of Good and Evil, we began to *suffer*. Death entered our world; not that other things shaped just like us had never stopped breathing, but we began to *notice*. Curiously, some time ago, suddenly ceremonial burial showed up and spread rapidly across the world... because we were *aware*.

That's my theory. It may be incorrect, but it fits the key points of the story, and science as I understand it.

 

[VOW]

To Tinker:

The book you mentioned is tremendous. I borrowed it from a co-worker, and I thought the author did a wonderful job of reconciling science to the Creationist view of the Bible. I heartily recommend that book to anyone!

To All:

The author of the book The Science of God, proposes that the "soul" came into existence once the human animal developed to the point where he/she could grasp the concept of God. A non-human animal (or a plant, for that matter) simply EXISTS, with no thought of how life originated, or what happens when life ends. Once people matured to the point where they questioned the world, their own existence, then the author says that people had a "soul." (This also gives a very tidy answer to the spouses of Adam and Eve's children!)

And again, to Tinker:

Please understand that these questions are not a problem for Christians who think evolution is the way God did it. Quite frankly, my God is big enough, gracious enough and merciful enough for all of mankind, past, present, and future.

I love the way you said this. I feel the same way. By accepting the premise of evolution, I never see it as detracting from the power of Almighty God. If anything, my conception of Him grows beyond limits.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you, VOW.  You made my day.

I don't agree with everything Schoeder said.  I have learned a few things since I read his book.  But, I will always be grateful to it (or him) for teaching me to think outside the box (or at least redefine what my box will be and to be ready for it to change.)

Originally posted by VOW
And again, to Tinker:

I love the way you said this. I feel the same way. By accepting the premise of evolution, I never see it as detracting from the power of Almighty God. If anything, my conception of Him grows beyond limits.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

{Emphasis Added}

My wife and I have said this to each other.  The more we learn about science, the more grand God is to us.

And peace be with you,

Tinker

 

[VOW]

To Tinker:

The more we learn about science, the more grand God is to us.

EXACTLY!

I get upset when people say scientists are generally atheists. How CAN they be? Take a basic chemistry class and STUDY the periodic table of elements. The organization of everything even down to the atomic level, to me anyway, is proof positive of the Hand of God. That these things were organized in such a beautiful, complex way long, long, LONG before we stupid human beings could even begin to comprehend them can only speak of Divine Intervention.

And the smarter that human beings get, the more there is to learn!


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Ioustinos]

Where were you guys a month ago? I started a thread about the book by Dr. Shcroeder The Science of God and nobody had read it!

I had saw a brief explanation by Dr. Shroeder on Zola Levitt and I had wanted to know if others thought it was worth the read. I think I started it in the Science Forum. Oh well I guess I got my answer

 

[VOW]

To Jesaiah:

Sorry, I didn't see your thread on The Science of God. Do you want to revive your conversation in this thread?



Peace,
~VOW

 

[Ioustinos]

Hi VOW, the thread I started was only to see if anyone had read the book and if they had any comments. I believe that my question has been answered now.


I will read the book, but as of now I still believe in the literal Genesis account. My main reasons are the theological problems that can/do exist with evolution. These arguments can be seen in the thread in the Teens forum in the thread "Who Believes in a Literal Genesis" ( I have not posted in that thread but some of my questions have been posed by other members)

 

[seebs]

I would be interested in seeing your theological objections, and your position on them. I currently feel that my theology is pretty consistent, but I'd be interested in seeing what problems you would have reconciling evolution with the rest of Christian theology.