Any Christians believe in macroevolution?

[nebulaJP]

Fourth, however the Biblical authors personally considered the stories, all your examples have them using the non-literal truths of the story.

So Paul is using a well-known story as his rationalization that women should be subservient to men. As I discuss in more detail below, you can argue that Paul's conclusion is faulty and contrary to God's intention. That Paul uses what turns out to be a "false" creation story is actually beneficial for God, isn't it?

I think that is significant. It looks like God is preventing the authors from any important theological message being dependent upon a literal Adam. In fact, it's the opposite. In your example, only a faulty theological message is tied to a literal Adam and Eve. In Paul's argument, the conclusion is faulty, isn't it? God didn't really intend for women to be subservient to men. What better way to correct Paul's mistake than to have Paul's argument based upon a faulty premise?

And who would know that the Adam and Eve eve story was a faulty premise? Paul didn't. Today in the age of evolutionary biology we know. What about all the people of the past 2000 years? A lot of them didn't and don't know.

Anyway, how does a 'faulty premise' translate to non-literal 'truth'. If the NT is to be taken literally wouldn't Paul be evoking the non-literal 'untruth' of the Adam and Eve story?

You can take out "in the seventh generation from Adam" and nothing changes in Jude's argument.

That was my point with Jude 1:14: "in the seventh generation from Adam". What's the non-literal truth to that? I couldn't see any in that one.

I never said the Bible makes God a real god. I only said "It was common at that time to make up geneologies. Aeneus had a geneology going back to Apollo. Does that make Apollo a real god?" See? A genealogy going back to Apollo doesn't make Apollo real. A genealogy going back to Adam doesn't make Jesus the son of God.

What makes Jesus the son of God? You should know this.

I wasn't saying that you were saying that. I was asking it in general. God is in the genealogy before Adam, so it does tie God to Jesus that way as well, which is comparable to the genealogy of Aeneus you were referring to.

 

[chris4243]

And who would know that the Adam and Eve eve story was a faulty premise? Paul didn't. Today in the age of evolutionary biology we know. What about all the people of the past 2000 years? A lot of them didn't and don't know.

Anyway, how does a 'faulty premise' translate to non-literal 'truth'. If the NT is to be taken literally wouldn't Paul be evoking the non-literal 'untruth' of the Adam and Eve story?

You mean, a reference to the parable of Adam and Eve?

That was my point with Jude 1:14: "in the seventh generation from Adam". What's the non-literal truth to that? I couldn't see any in that one.

How about in Matthew's genealogy, is the 42 generations literal? If so, why list only 41 generations? Clearly it can't be literally true, since he contradicts himself.

 

[good brother]

How about in Matthew's genealogy, is the 42 generations literal? If so, why list only 41 generations? Clearly it can't be literally true, since he contradicts himself.

There is no contradiction in Jude. He says that Enoch was the seventh from Adam. You can look in Genesis 5 to count it out for yourself. I'll post it here and highlight the sequence for you.

1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch .

I don't know about you, but I counted seven. There is no contradiction.


In Christ, GB

 

[nebulaJP]

When defining morality, I refer to Aristotle, who posited that there are six stages of moral development, arranged in a hierarchy from lowest to highest. Every human being enters the world at the lowest stage and moral development consists of moving to higher ones. Not all humans beings reach the highest stages. The six stages are explained at greater length on this page [link], but I'll give a summary.

So, with the six stages defined, we can define morality as "a desire and conscious attempt to reach higher levels of moral development".

You're right, we've been talking past each other because I only mean knowing the difference between right and wrong in the way that it matters to animals in practice and defining morality using a dictionary.

Animals generally exist at level one. If we train an animal to do what we like, by definition it must be at level two. There may be perhaps some at level three, but no animals has any desire to move upwards in moral levels. Animals by definition cannot understand something as abstract as a principle or apply reasoning to determine whether adherence to the law is just.

Due to our abilities of abstract thought and reason our sense of morality is well defined but that doesn't make us the most moral species. We do all the environmental damage, not animals. (I don't know who would be the most moral species. Maybe dolphins!) Animals share some categories of thought with us, but in their own way.

They think in ways that we don't so they have categories of thought that are more advanced in them while poorly defined in us, just as our sense of morality is more defined than theirs due to our superior intellect. For example, dogs attach a lot of meaning to various smells and have thoughts related to this. This thought process is poorly defined in most humans (wine tasters being an exception). Many animals have thought processes related to migration patterns or as in the case of homing pigeons, finding specific locations. Our sense of direction is not as well defined. So in this category of thought that we share with pigeons (having to do with location), they have a better sense. With morality, we have a better sense.

Establishing that animals feel something like empathy in some cases does not make them moral. Empathy is an emotion, not a principle or a result of reasoning.

I think that fundamentally, morality has more to do with instinct/intuition rather than emotion or reason (but emotion and/or reason can play a part). The main reason (or cause that) my cat doesn't claw my eye out is because she has morals (d.d. - dictionary definition) or an understanding of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. As in us, a lot of this is learned but some of it what is considered bad behavior is so obvious that most species know it by instinct. We as humans don't use much if any of our advanced human reasoning ability to make simple extrapolations about how others may feel if we bodily harm them. Basic morality (d.d.) as an "instinct" is more ingrained in us than advanced reasoning ability and I would imagine that, for survival purposes we developed morality (d.d.) earlier in our evolutionary history than we did reason. That is, it wouldn't do for our ancestors to kill off all the members of their hunting parties arbitrarily. Later in our evolutionary history when we started sitting around fires to cook meat we developed more complex thought.

One can easily imagine scenarios in which empathy causes a person to do something wrong. One obvious example would be if, due to empathy with members of a family or tribe, we do nasty things to those outside the family or tribe.

Usually going to war out of empathy for your family or tribe is the right or moral thing to do for your family or tribe - if the outsiders will hurt your family or tribe or eat all the food in the area.

First, felines are not social animals. They are solitary predators.

Being solitary predators doesn't make them solitary animals. Lions are a social species and are cooperative hunters. Domestic cats are a social species but they're solitary hunters, even when living in feral cat colonies.

 

[chris4243]

How about in Matthew's genealogy, is the 42 generations literal? If so, why list only 41 generations? Clearly it can't be literally true, since he contradicts himself.

There is no contradiction in Jude. He says that Enoch was the seventh from Adam. You can look in Genesis 5 to count it out for yourself. I'll post it here and highlight the sequence for you.

Yeah, but funny thing is I was talking about Matthew's genealogy and you ignore that, why might that be? Did Matthew list 42 generations, or no?

 

[lucaspa]

You might want to read some of the other posts here, instead of [apparently] just chiming in with your microscope.

Here's a good starting point: 49

Sorry, AV, but that starting point doesn't help. First, you say that the genealogies name "both" of Jesus' grandparents. But they don't. Because both genealogies go thru Joseph, they should name the same grandfather. After all, Joseph only had one father, right?

Read literally, the genealogies are wrong. All you did was reinforce that by pointing out that Luke knows they are wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

And who would know that the Adam and Eve eve story was a faulty premise? Paul didn't. Today in the age of evolutionary biology we know. What about all the people of the past 2000 years? A lot of them didn't and don't know.

Everyone at the time the story first circulated would have known. Paul is 1500 years later. Paul wants to make a point about the subservience of women. So he rationalizes with the Adam and Eve story. Interestingly, Jesus in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 uses part of the story to justify the equality of men and women and correct a blatant inequality and injustice toward women.

So, are women subservient to men? C'mon, in Genesis 1 God creates men and women together equally. Paul is misusing scripture here as rationalization for his own misogyny.

And yes, lots of people for the last 2,000 years insist on taking the stories literally. However, there have always been Christians telling them they were wrong to do so. As just a few examples over the centuries, we have St. Augustine in the early 400s, John Calvin in the early 1500s, and Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. That people persist in error when they are being told the truth is not "didn't know".

Anyway, how does a 'faulty premise' translate to non-literal 'truth'. If the NT is to be taken literally wouldn't Paul be evoking the non-literal 'untruth' of the Adam and Eve story?

Here you have the premise that "the NT is to be taken literally". Notice the "If" in front of that. That "If" denotes you are making a premise. That premise is in error. Not all the NT is to be taken literally. Nor is everything Paul states supposed to be taken as "gospel" and without error.

For instance, Paul in 1 Thessalonians states that women should not have leadership positions in church. My denomination (and many others) has decided that should not be taken as any type of truth, literal or non-literal. I am arguing that the same applies with Paul trying to make women "subservient". Paul was a great preacher. It doesn't mean that everything he uttered is theologically true.

That was my point with Jude 1:14: "in the seventh generation from Adam". What's the non-literal truth to that? I couldn't see any in that one.

The point is that the phrase is unnecessary to the point the author is making. Take the phrase out and Jude's point stands, doesn't it? The author may have believed it, but the phrase has no bearing on the theological truth the author is trying to convey.

God is in the genealogy before Adam, so it does tie God to Jesus that way as well, which is comparable to the genealogy of Aeneus you were referring to.

Not really. God is not the father of Adam, is He? Apollo was said to be the father of Aeneus. So the examples are not comparable.

Jesus is tied to God as son. But not thru the genealogies, which run thru Joseph. As AV has pointed out, even Luke admits that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, so God is not tied to Jesus thru the genealogies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, AV, but that starting point doesn't help.

Then I would say the problem is on your end.

First, you say that the genealogies name "both" of Jesus' grandparents.

That is correct: Jesus' grandfathers were Jacob (maternal) and Heli (maternal).

But they don't.

Yes, they do.

Because both genealogies go thru Joseph, they should name the same grandfather.

And since they don't name the same grandfather, ff. it isn't the same line, is it?

After all, Joseph only had one father, right?

Right.

Read literally, the genealogies are wrong.

Then don't read it that literally, and your problem will clear itself up.

You do realize that I could have answered your last question: Yes, Joseph had a father -- Father Abraham?

Earthly-speaking, Jesus had 0 fathers and 2 grandfathers.

All you did was reinforce that by pointing out that Luke knows they are wrong.

That is correct. Luke knows that Joseph is not the father of Jesus Christ, as some supposed He was.

 

[nebulaJP]

Fourth, however the Biblical authors personally considered the stories, all your examples have them using the non-literal truths of the story. For what I mean by this, it might be helpful to take this out of the Bible to the present day and see how we use fictional stories as illustration in our own lives. For instance, when I am forgetting things, I say that I am being an "absent minded professor", referring back to the character in the movie of that title. I am not thinking that character was literally real. People refer to romances between 2 people from families that hate each other as a "Romeo and Juliet romance". That doesn't mean Romeo and Juliet were real people. Similarly, we often hear of a muscle builder as having a "herculean physique". Hercules is still fictional.

Jude 1:14

It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “ Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

1 Timothy 2:13

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

So would you say that you were wrong when you said "all your examples have them using the non-literal truths of the story."? That is my only point. You said all my examples (references to Adam in post-Genesis books) use the "non-literal truth" of the Adam and Eve story and gave clear examples of what you mean by the phrase "non-literal truth". But that doesn't seem to resemble what you're saying now:

The point is that the phrase is unnecessary to the point the author is making. Take the phrase out and Jude's point stands, doesn't it? The author may have believed it, but the phrase has no bearing on the theological truth the author is trying to convey.

 

[nebulaJP]

Jesus is tied to God as son. But not thru the genealogies, which run thru Joseph. As AV has pointed out, even Luke admits that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, so God is not tied to Jesus thru the genealogies.

From the Wikipedia, Genealogy of Jesus article:

Lastly, some, from as early as John of Damascus, view “as was supposed of Joseph” as a parenthetical note, with Luke actually calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning, it is then suggested, that Heli (Ηλι, Heli) is the maternal grandfather of Jesus, and Luke is actually tracing the ancestry of Jesus according to the flesh through Mary.[14] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli".

 

[nebulaJP]

Not really. God is not the father of Adam, is He?

What does the Bible say about it?
(NASB)

Luke 3:38
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[nebulaJP]

Here you have the premise that "the NT is to be taken literally". Notice the "If" in front of that. That "If" denotes you are making a premise. That premise is in error. Not all the NT is to be taken literally. Nor is everything Paul states supposed to be taken as "gospel" and without error.

Sorry for the multi-post response. Did you see my list of miracles and fantasy stories on page 8 of this thread? I will go out on a limb and say that you don't believe in the "talking donkey" in Numbers 22: 21-35. How do you choose which of the miracles in the NT you believe literally happened? If none of the miracles in the NT literally happened then how did Jesus convince people of his divinity?

 

[lucaspa]

What does the Bible say about it?
(NASB)

So who exactly did God impregnate to conceive Adam?

 

[lucaspa]

I will go out on a limb and say that you don't believe in the "talking donkey" in Numbers 22: 21-35.

I am going to saw the limb off behind you. Yes, I do.

How do you choose which of the miracles in the NT you believe literally happened?

All of those not contradicted by God in His Creation. Now, which miracles in the NT fall under that category?

 

[lucaspa]

Due to our abilities of abstract thought and reason our sense of morality is well defined but that doesn't make us the most moral species. We do all the environmental damage, not animals.

Other species also do environmental damage. I grant that humans are better at it because of their technology, but beavers destroy the environment of a field when them dam a stream. Locusts and army ant swarms destroy the environments of the areas they infest, overpopulation of deer will destroy the environment of a forest, etc.

They think in ways that we don't so they have categories of thought that are more advanced in them while poorly defined in us, just as our sense of morality is more defined than theirs due to our superior intellect.

Are you sure you can say that? Remember, for us to evaluate "superior intellect" we do 2 things: 1. look at technology and 2. communicate with them. If a species does not have tool making ability, we never consider "intellect". Also, a species (dolphins, for example) could have equal or superior intellect to humans but we can't communicate with them to find out.

With morality, we have a better sense.

You can't say that because we can't have a discussion about morals with any other species. We know what our morals are because we communicate them with each other. But a "moral sense"? Not so much.

We as humans don't use much if any of our advanced human reasoning ability to make simple extrapolations about how others may feel if we bodily harm them.

Are you sure? Perhaps a lot of our "advanced human reasoning" is based on the ability to extrapolate consequences of behavior. Certainly scientific reasoning is based on the ability to extrapolate consequences of hypotheses.

Basic morality (d.d.) as an "instinct" is more ingrained in us than advanced reasoning ability and I would imagine that, for survival purposes we developed morality (d.d.) earlier in our evolutionary history than we did reason.

Are you sure about that "basic morality"? I would say that we teach our offspring very early what is "basic morality". We provide painful consequences for "bad" behavior to our children, do we not? Infants beat on each other regularly; we enforce that "basic morality" by punishing them.

Being solitary predators doesn't make them solitary animals. Lions are a social species and are cooperative hunters. Domestic cats are a social species but they're solitary hunters, even when living in feral cat colonies.

Male lions are solitary. It is one adult male and a harem of females. So, killing an invading male is self-defense. Killing the kittens of the previous male allows the females to ovulate and get pregnant by the current male lion.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucas, thanks for your response. This is my personal belief: God, as described in the Bible, doesn't exist. However, if the universe has a consciousness (which I personally don't believe) and if this 'conscious universe' did directly inspire the Bible's authors in some way, and if it was somehow scientifically proven that the Bible was 'divinely inspired', then the Bible would still be 100% fiction to me.

I don't care what the Bible is to you. By all means, remain pantheist if you want. However, doesn't pantheism require that the universe has a consciousness? After all, if the universe is god, doesn't that mean that the universe is conscious? You deny that.

I would assume that the reason the Bible has so many miracles and fantasy elements in it is so that we would know it's fiction.

How does that follow? It appears that you are using circular reasoning here: presuming the miracles are fiction, then using the fiction of the miracles to say the Biblical accounts of miracles is fiction.

Which of these fantastic stories (or stories concerning the stuff of fantasy rather than reality) do you not believe in, as a man of science? Only the first 2? If so, why would that be the case?

Actually, I do believe that God created the universe. I simply believe God did so by the processes discovered by science. #2 is not a "miracle", since the stories do not invoke miracle to have the Flood. However, there is evidence that the Flood was not world-wide. There is evidence that a severe local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley inspired the Unt-napushtim story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (the story from which the Flood story was derived).

There is considerable evidence contradicting that the Babel story is the origin of language.

Basically, I use evidence from God's Creation to decide whether a particular miracle did not happen. From #4 on out, such evidence does not exist except for #33 and #34.

Otherwise, wearing my scientist hat, I have no means of saying any of the rest didn't happen.

I may be skeptical of a couple, i.e. #24 but that is not due to science.

 

[nebulaJP]

I am going to saw the limb off behind you. Yes, I do.

All of those not contradicted by God in His Creation. Now, which miracles in the NT are contradicted by God?

I'm not following you. Are you saying the only story that you don't believe literally happened as described in the Bible is one that has been conclusively disproven by science? The Adam and Eve story? What about the Noah's Ark story? This story has also been scientifically disproven. What about the erroneous cosmology and flat earth conception in the Bible? This has also been scientifically disproven and the temptation of Christ by the Devil story as well as several other stories and descriptions depend on a flat earth being literally true.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;

 

[lucaspa]

Then I would say the problem is on your end.

I suggest that, from now on, that you read my entire post before responding. In the next sentence, I told you why it didn't help.

That is correct: Jesus' grandfathers were Jacob (maternal) and Heli (maternal).

Sorry, but both are named as the paternal grandfather. Luke 2:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, " See? Heli is not maternal, but the father of Joseph.

Matthew 1:16: "And Jacob begat Joseph "

Again, Jacob is the father of Joseph. 2 paternal grandfathers, but Joseph can only have a single father, can't he?

And since they don't name the same grandfather, ff. it isn't the same line, is it?

They say it is. Both Matthew and Luke say they are doing Joseph's line. So, do you just say one of them is lying about being Joseph's line? Which one? How did you decide the line with Heli was the maternal line?

Then don't read it that literally, and your problem will clear itself up.

The problem is that both authors say they are giving a genealogy of Joseph's line and the genealogies contradict. What you want is for both genealogies to be correct. You decide that one of them is giving the genealogy thru Mary. However, that is not a "non-literal" reading. It is deciding that one of the authors lied about giving Joseph's genealogy. What basis, other thant the contradiction, do you have for that decision?

You are trying to preserve the "truth" of the Bible. To do that you say that either Luke or Matthew is lying. Do you see the irony, AV? The rest of us see it.

You claim it is OK for you to decide that a Biblical author lied to get out of a contradiction here. However, when faced with numerous contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, you refuse to claim that one of those authors lied. Why?

You do realize that I could have answered your last question: Yes, Joseph had a father -- Father Abraham?

Not really. You could say Joseph had an ancestor of Abraham. But you can't really say that Abraham is Joseph's father, can you? Not without being very non-literal. Something you won't allow us to do elsewhere in the Bible.

So, AV, how do you decide what can be non-literal and what must be literal?

Earthly-speaking, Jesus had 0 fathers and 2 grandfathers.

No, earthly speaking, Jesus had 0 fathers and 1 grandfather. Mary only had 1 father, after all. Unless you have some very strange ideas on how human reproduction works.

That is correct. Luke knows that Joseph is not the father of Jesus Christ, as some supposed He was.

In which case, Luke knowlingly gives a false genealogy for Jesus, doesn't he? On the father's side, Jesus' genealogy is very short: Jesus son of Yahweh, Yahweh has no father.

But instead, Luke traces out Joseph's genealogy. Why do you think Luke did that? What is more important, since Matthew is also tracing Joseph's genealogy, why do not those genealogies match exactly? Didn't God know Joseph's genealogy? Why would God allow such errors in one or both genealogies?

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not following you. Are you saying the only story that you don't believe literally happened as described in the Bible is one that has been conclusively disproven by science?

You asked me specifically about Balaam's mule. I said "All of those not contradicted by God in His Creation. "

As you have noted, there is evidence from God in His Creation to falsify a literal reading of Genesis 2 and Genesis 6-8 as well as the Babylonian cosmology.

This has also been scientifically disproven and the temptation of Christ by the Devil story as well as several other stories and descriptions depend on a flat earth being literally true.

Sorry, but the temptation story does not depend on a flat earth. Yes, literally speaking, Matthew 4:8 would have a flat earth if Jesus were to literally see "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory". However, why can't that be figurative? A figure of speech, IOW? Is there anything in science or the text to say that Satan was talking literally and not figuratively? None that I can see.

Do you see the non-sequitor you are making? You are saying that if the whole story is not literally true in every detail, then the story as a whole cannot be in any fashion true. Please tell me your logic skills are sharp enough to see the non-sequitor there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but both are named as the paternal grandfather. Luke 2:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, " See? Heli is not maternal, but the father of Joseph.

Try son-in-law here.