Believe in Genesis Chap 1-3?!

[The Lady Kate]

It's not about firepower, TBS. It's not about massing up all the facts and the arguments and the counterarguments and beating the mickey out of their hardcore atheist mindsets. Only the Holy Spirit can make a person Christian. If the Holy Spirit does not inspire and reveal the truth to someone even Einstein wouldn't be able to argue him into becoming a Christian. And our role is not to go beat the mickey out of whatever they believe, but to pray that God will open their eyes and to help them to be receptive to the Holy Spirit by showing them through your lives what the Holy Spirit does for Christians.

Exactly on point, shernren! Scientific facts are not meant to teach us anything, one way or the other, about our relationship with God. God transcends science, and in most cases, so does belief.

(also, not to nit-pick or anything, but wasn't Einstein Jewish? He wouldn't be arguing anyone into Christianity anyway...)

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Of those who believe Genesis 1-11 are fake stories, what is the position on Enoch when he is refered to in Hebrews 11:5, Luke 3:37 and Jude 1:14? What is the position on Adam who is refered to in Luke, Romans, 1 Corinithians, 1 Timothy and Jude?

sidenote: I just can't get past the point that TE's think I shouldn't see TE as a Deistic Evolution viewpoint. Sin has be devolved into what is natural that God made us do.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Of those who believe Genesis 1-11 are fake stories, what is the position on Enoch when he is refered to in Hebrews 11:5, Luke 3:37 and Jude 1:14? What is the position on Adam who is refered to in Luke, Romans, 1 Corinithians, 1 Timothy and Jude?

sidenote: I just can't get past the point that TE's think I shouldn't see TE as a Deistic Evolution viewpoint. Sin has be devolved into what is natural that God made us do.

No one here believes any of the stories in the Bible are "fake" "false" or "lies", TE's just accept that they may not be a literal truth but definitely are a figurative truth.



It is no wonder why you can't get past the point you seem to be stuck at, you have never bothered to learn what TE's really think, you just judge them by the imaginary beastly image you have created for then inside your own head.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Is Enoch or Adam a "figurative" person that the NT authors talk about? They seem to be talking about real people to me. Why do I have to only focus on just the verses speaking on Jesus and not the ones talking about Adam as I have heard said is the reason for Adam in Romans and 1 Cor.. I don't understand how a contextual interpretations comes to be viewed as "figurative" in these verses or chapters or books I list.

Is the lineage of Jesus built with "figurative" people?

 

[Mathematician]

Wild,

Is Enoch or Adam a "figurative" person that the NT authors talk about? They seem to be talking about real people to me. Why do I have to only focus on just the verses speaking on Jesus and not the ones talking about Adam as I have heard said is the reason for Adam in Romans and 1 Cor.. I don't understand how a contextual interpretations comes to be viewed as "figurative" in these verses or chapters or books I list.

Is the lineage of Jesus built with "figurative" people?

Jude endorsed Enoch's prophecy. Do you count Enoch's prophecy as Scripture? If you don't then you really don't believe in Enoch either. If you do, you're going to be in trouble with your fundamentalist church.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Is Enoch or Adam a "figurative" person that the NT authors talk about? They seem to be talking about real people to me. Why do I have to only focus on just the verses speaking on Jesus and not the ones talking about Adam as I have heard said is the reason for Adam in Romans and 1 Cor.. I don't understand how a contextual interpretations comes to be viewed as "figurative" in these verses or chapters or books I list.

Is the lineage of Jesus built with "figurative" people?

When did I or any other TE tell you to ignore any part of the Bible? Again you seem not to be having any argument with any real TE, just the monster in your own head.



Think about this, is the snake in the garden a real talking snake, or is it Satan? Does the snake figuratively representing Satan change the meaning of the basic text? Would Adam and Eve figuratively representing mankind up to that point change the meaning of the text? IMHO, no, it does not change it at all. Do you feel it changes it? If so, how and why?

 

[chaoschristian]

Of those who believe Genesis 1-11 are fake stories,

Hold the phone - fake?

Can you provide documented, verifiable proof that any TE on this forum has ever claimed that any part of the Bible is fake?

As you made this assertion within a debating forum I would like to see your proof, now.

You seem to be forgetting that everyone here, TE, YEC, OEC and alike, is here on condition of the statement of Christian faith that one is required to witness to in order to have the priviledge of posting in this part of CF.

Your assertion implies that some of us here have provided false witness. I want to see you either provide evidence of that false witness or retract your claim.

what is the position on Enoch when he is refered to in Hebrews 11:5, Luke 3:37 and Jude 1:14? What is the position on Adam who is refered to in Luke, Romans, 1 Corinithians, 1 Timothy and Jude?

What is your position on this and how is it relevant to discussing what is supposed to be the main topic of this forum without it relating to your presuppositions regarding the status and validity of certain others faith?

sidenote: I just can't get past the point that TE's think I shouldn't see TE as a Deistic Evolution viewpoint.

Rewrite: I cannot comprehend a reality in which I could be expected to respect the faith of another Christian who holds a view of Creation that is in opposition to my own. Since I cannot comprehend this reality I am free to continue on as if it cannot exist and am also therefore free to claim that any person who does not agree with my view on Creation is not a Christian. My ignorance in this matter, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, should not reflect badly on either my motives or my intelligence.

Sin has be devolved into what is natural that God made us do.

It seems that you are asserting in this statement that one must accept sin as a manifest result of evolution and/or other natural processes if one also excepts the validity of science as a means of understanding Creation.

What it implies is that you cannot see how God could allow life to form over millions and millions of years with one of the results being humanity (as He intended and foresaw) and not have original sin as an inherant component of all those life forms that existed along the way. This would then lead you to believe that TEs believe that original sin was something that God planned and intended for humanity, rather than it being a result of man's wilfull disobience to and rejection of God.

Do I have this right?

If so, then I for one can tell you that I do not believe that. Science helps us to reveal the processes that God chose to employ in His act of Creation and helps us to reveal some element of His character. It is indifferent to the subject of sin, original or otherwise

It seems to me that whether one reads the Genesis account as either strictly literal or strictly metaphorical or even some combination of the two that one would conclude that the fallen nature of man and his resultant struggle to be in relationship with God is a result of his choice to reject God rather than something that is inherant in his biology.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Hold the phone - fake?

Can you provide documented, verifiable proof that any TE on this forum has ever claimed that any part of the Bible is fake?

As you made this assertion within a debating forum I would like to see your proof, now.

You seem to be forgetting that everyone here, TE, YEC, OEC and alike, is here on condition of the statement of Christian faith that one is required to witness to in order to have the priviledge of posting in this part of CF.

Your assertion implies that some of us here have provided false witness. I want to see you either provide evidence of that false witness or retract your claim.

Fake. Mythical. Fictitious. Not true to how it actually happened. Adam was not formed from the dust of the ground. Eve wasn't formed by the rib of man. Fake. Made to symbolize than be literally true. I don't think that just because you don't like the wording means I have misconstrued what I think is your belief.

what is the position on Enoch when he is refered to in Hebrews 11:5, Luke 3:37 and Jude 1:14? What is the position on Adam who is refered to in Luke, Romans, 1 Corinithians, 1 Timothy and Jude?

What is your position on this and how is it relevant to discussing what is supposed to be the main topic of this forum without it relating to your presuppositions regarding the status and validity of certain others faith?

What do you mean "how is it relevant"? From my understanding of the TEs stance is that it is some mythical story to give some sort of meaning to how the earth, man and sin came to be. If this is the case, then what is the stance as to why all these NT authors choose to write of these two people and a few others as if they were real? Do you think they were misguided?

Rewrite: I cannot comprehend a reality in which I could be expected to respect the faith of another Christian who holds a view of Creation that is in opposition to my own. Since I cannot comprehend this reality I am free to continue on as if it cannot exist and am also therefore free to claim that any person who does not agree with my view on Creation is not a Christian. My ignorance in this matter, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, should not reflect badly on either my motives or my intelligence.

It seems that you are asserting in this statement that one must accept sin as a manifest result of evolution and/or other natural processes if one also excepts the validity of science as a means of understanding Creation.

What it implies is that you cannot see how God could allow life to form over millions and millions of years with one of the results being humanity (as He intended and foresaw) and not have original sin as an inherant component of all those life forms that existed along the way. This would then lead you to believe that TEs believe that original sin was something that God planned and intended for humanity, rather than it being a result of man's wilfull disobience to and rejection of God.

Do I have this right?

If so, then I for one can tell you that I do not believe that. Science helps us to reveal the processes that God chose to employ in His act of Creation and helps us to reveal some element of His character. It is indifferent to the subject of sin, original or otherwise

It seems to me that whether one reads the Genesis account as either strictly literal or strictly metaphorical or even some combination of the two that one would conclude that the fallen nature of man and his resultant struggle to be in relationship with God is a result of his choice to reject God rather than something that is inherant in his biology.

IMO, it sounds deistic and not theistic. I'm giving my fear of how it sounds to me and maybe you have no clue as to why I could feel that way. If you could squelch that fear I have it would help. I do apologize that I sound combative to you. I'll try my best to demonstrate why I have that fear. I'm trying to get answers so that I can possibly piece this together. I can see how evolution is possible. I am not a scientist or a lover of science. Just like politics, I don't trust the scientists to not have a skewed stance because of their beliefs on either side of this position. For me, I have no problem having evolution taught in school, just like I have no problem with homosexuality legalized. School is a political battleground and Christianity is not for politics IMO.

I'm not sure I know what I believe about evolution, except that I think it could be possible all the way up to leaving man out of it. I believe everything was created by God purposefully. If evolution is true in some form, then anything that happened was not random, IMO. It was God driven. But man was created outside the process of evolution. Man was created uniquely. You don't have animal going to hell for disobeying the word of God. Only man. Everything was purposely created for man on earth, from how I see it.

What I fear as being deistic is the leeway that can be taken in what I understand as the TE version, Science is about studying verifiable information. Science can not verify sin. Science can not prove sin exists. Science can not prove God exists. Science can not prove Jesus is God. Science can not prove Jesus walked on water. Science can not prove Jesus tossed demons into swines. Science can not prove demon possession. Science can not prove demons possession. Science can not prove Paul was blinded by Jesus' light. Scientist want to be able to prove how Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego could survive the fiery furnace and everyone else died. Scientist want to prove how God might have talked through a burning bush, but they can't prove the bush talked.

Science and God don't mix because Science is man's desire to interpret God's designed world. Science can understand many things and I don't question many of the things science figures out. But for people to begin to try to understand how sin came into being is dangerous, IMO. "Sin in the beginning is told to us in an allegorical way to demonstrate that we have free will to make decisions.". This wasn't said by anyone but it encapsulate what I hear. What it says to me is that sin was a natural formation that happened via a process of evolution to help us determine what is right and wrong. It gives off a very deistic sound. Maybe I have it all wrong as to what TE believes.

 

[ebia]

Fake. Mythical. Fictitious.

3 words that mean completely different things.

Not true to how it actually happened. Adam was not formed from the dust of the ground. Eve wasn't formed by the rib of man. Fake.

That's not what the word fake means.

Made to symbolize than be literally true.

True does not equal literal.
Symbolic does not equal false.

I don't think that just because you don't like the wording means I have misconstrued what I think is your belief.

If you use the wrong word to describe something, don't be suprised if people misunderstand you.

What do you mean "how is it relevant"? From my understanding of the TEs stance is that it is some mythical story to give some sort of meaning to how the earth, man and sin came to be. If this is the case, then what is the stance as to why all these NT authors choose to write of these two people and a few others as if they were real?

They don't talk about them "as if they were real", they talk about them as characters in a shared story of our background. Even in modern speech we do that, how much more so in an age that saw myth as more true than factual history.

You read it as implying they were historical characters purely because you read it in a modern, ultra-literal, way with a preconcieved notion that the characters were literal.

IMO, it sounds deistic and not theistic. I'm giving my fear of how it sounds to me and maybe you have no clue as to why I could feel that way.

Not the slightest.

I'm not sure I know what I believe about evolution, except that I think it could be possible all the way up to leaving man out of it. I believe everything was created by God purposefully. If evolution is true in some form, then anything that happened was not random, IMO. It was God driven. But man was created outside the process of evolution. Man was created uniquely. You don't have animal going to hell for disobeying the word of God. Only man. Everything was purposely created for man on earth, from how I see it.

Evolution is nothing more nor less than an explanation of the natural process God used to achieve this. It takes nothing away from God, nor does it imply that God does not have special place for man in creation.

Science and God don't mix because Science is man's desire to interpret God's designed world.

Science has nothing to say about God at all. Science studies the creation, not the creator.

Science can understand many things and I don't question many of the things science figures out. But for people to begin to try to understand how sin came into being is dangerous, IMO. "Sin in the beginning is told to us in an allegorical way to demonstrate that we have free will to make decisions.". This wasn't said by anyone but it encapsulate what I hear. What it says to me is that sin was a natural formation that happened via a process of evolution to help us determine what is right and wrong. It gives off a very deistic sound. Maybe I have it all wrong as to what TE believes.

Yep.

Science tells us nothing about sin - it can't. Genesis 2 tells us how we, as individuals and collectively, separate ourselves from God. That's how we begin to understand sin, not through science.

 

[shernren]

EW, what do you mean by "deistic"? It's the first time I've heard the word being applied to evolutionists here. More often than not it seems to be something more applicable, ironically, to certain YEC viewpoints - the "natural absence" of God in understandable science and history.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm not sure I know what I believe about evolution, except that I think it could be possible all the way up to leaving man out of it. I believe everything was created by God purposefully. If evolution is true in some form, then anything that happened was not random, IMO. It was God driven. But man was created outside the process of evolution. Man was created uniquely. You don't have animal going to hell for disobeying the word of God. Only man. Everything was purposely created for man on earth, from how I see it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of theistic evolution! While not all TEs hold this exact view, it is well within the realm of TE thinking.

What I fear as being deistic is the leeway that can be taken in what I understand as the TE version,

You just gave an accurate account of one form of TE thinking. You have the basics right, just expect to see some variance in the particulars.

Science is about studying verifiable information. Science can not verify sin. Science can not prove sin exists. Science can not prove God exists. Science can not prove Jesus is God. Science can not prove Jesus walked on water. Science can not prove Jesus tossed demons into swines. Science can not prove demon possession. Science can not prove demons possession. Science can not prove Paul was blinded by Jesus' light. Scientist want to be able to prove how Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego could survive the fiery furnace and everyone else died. Scientist want to prove how God might have talked through a burning bush, but they can't prove the bush talked.

Yes, and? You seem to have grasped the basics again. What about this is deistic to you?

Science and God don't mix because Science is man's desire to interpret God's designed world.

Try looking at this way: Science is God's gift to mankind. It is the means through which He wants mankind to explore and understand His Creation so that mankind can be the best stewards of it as they can be. Man's desire is to be in relationship with God. Science is one tool that man can use to strengthen that relationship. As Christians we accept the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we look toward the Bible as the inspired work of God. Why should science be any less inspired?

Science can understand many things and I don't question many of the things science figures out. But for people to begin to try to understand how sin came into being is dangerous, IMO. "Sin in the beginning is told to us in an allegorical way to demonstrate that we have free will to make decisions.". This wasn't said by anyone but it encapsulate what I hear.

I think you are confusing science and metaphysics here. Science is wholly indifferent to the subject of sin.

What it says to me is that sin was a natural formation that happened via a process of evolution to help us determine what is right and wrong. It gives off a very deistic sound. Maybe I have it all wrong as to what TE believes.

From my original response to you:

Science helps us to reveal the processes that God chose to employ in His act of Creation and helps us to reveal some element of His character. It is indifferent to the subject of sin, original or otherwise

It seems to me that whether one reads the Genesis account as either strictly literal or strictly metaphorical or even some combination of the two that one would conclude that the fallen nature of man and his resultant struggle to be in relationship with God is a result of his choice to reject God rather than something that is inherant in his biology.

Please note the bits I underlined. I do not know of any TE who has ever suggested that sin is a manifestation of man's biology, through evolution or otherwise. One would really have to mix one's ducks and chickens to arrive at that conclusion, as it would, to my way of thinking, critically undermine the spiritual element of man's nature. That in turn would seriously damage the viability of one's Christian beliefs.

Perhaps this is at the root of your apprehension, that TEs are someone denying man's spiritual nature. I think it is safe to say that that is not the case.

I hope this helps.

 

[shinbits]

Believe in Genesis Chap 1-3?!

I believe in Genesis 1-3, as well as Genesis 4-Rev 22.

 

[artybloke]

Fake. Mythical. Fictitious. Not true to how it actually happened.

Fake = deliberately intended to decieve.

Mythical = a story that is probably fictitious that is intended to reveal a truth about the relationship between divinity and humanity.

Fictitious = a story, told as a way of entertaining or enlightening or both an audience.

Stories are not "fake." Ask a novelist if he/she has any intention to decieve you. Ask a poet who uses symbolism why they use it rather than simply use plain ordinary facts.

The Genesis stories are true. But they don't also have to be factual.

 

[chaoschristian]

Fake. Mythical. Fictitious. Not true to how it actually happened. Adam was not formed from the dust of the ground. Eve wasn't formed by the rib of man. Fake. Made to symbolize than be literally true.

You are equating terms that are so only in the broadest and most general sense. What if Adam was not formed from the dust of the ground, and Eve not formed from his rib? That doesn't make the Genesis account fake. The Piltdown Man was a fake, and its fabricators had the intent to deceive for the advancement of their own interests. To be fake one would have to assume that God's intent was to deceive rather than to inform. The Genesis account is by no means God's 'Piltdown Man' and is still quite informative if one takes it as metaphor rather than literal b&w fact.

I don't think that just because you don't like the wording means I have misconstrued what I think is your belief.

I take issue with the wording because of what it implies. You are posting in a debating forum. Words have meaning. Say what you mean and mean what you say, or pay the consequences for carelessness.

Your statement here seems to indicate that you were not being careless with your choice of words, that you do indeed believe TEs view the Genesis account as fake.

As this has profound implications, I ask once again, where is your proof that any TE, or anyone for that matter, on this forum holds such a view?

And I will not be satisfied by a "I was just stating my opinion" response. Opinions must be substantiated, especially ones with, as I said, such profound implications. Substantiate or retract.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

3 words that mean completely different things.

That's not what the word fake means.

True does not equal literal.
Symbolic does not equal false.

If you use the wrong word to describe something, don't be suprised if people misunderstand you.

Fake can mean those things. I'm not using the wrong word. I checked the dictionary before I wrote it.

 

[PippinofTook]

okay y'all you may not take me for much because I'm new but I wrote a paper on this for one of my history classes... I dis agree with alot of what y'all are sayin... theistic evolution and all that jazz... please read the whole report.

Theistic-Evolution: Biblical truth or Atheistic Influence​

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1.

The first verse in the Bible clearly states that God created the universe. This was considered scientific fact for thousands of years until Charles Darwin took ideas from the scientific minds of that day and pieced together the theory of Evolution. This theory states that all living things, through a series of mutations, changed from random chemicals floating in a “soup” to the modern day versions that we can observe.

Many Christians have held fast to the Creation account in the Bible but, over the years, some of the more “scientific” have come to interpret the Bible and the evidence for Creation in a different light, thus making a new theory. This theory is called Theistic-Evolution. This theory states that God started the evolutionary processes and then sat back and watched. With this theory a Christian can believe in an old earth and the “facts” that evolutionists have discovered.

The main argument for Theistic-Evolution is their interpretation of the word “day”. They argue that, as stated in 2 Peter 3:8

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

When taken out of context and applied, this verse seems to make their case.

One thing that most Theistic-Evolutionists seem to over look is the original Hebrew word. The original word for day used in Genesis is “Yom” this word by its self means a period of time but used with a number it means a number of days. In Genesis alone it is used 410 times with a number implying a literal number of days. Also when used with the words “evening” and “morning” it implies a single day. In Genesis it is used this way 23 times.

The plural of the word “Yom” is the word “yamim” which, used with the words “evening” and “morning”, would signify more than one day or many days.

Some other words which God could have used if He wanted to specify a long period of time are:

• “Qedem” which means ancient
• “Olam” which means everlasting
• “Dor” which just means a period of time
• “Tamid” which is continually

Another argument Theistic-Evolutionists use is the verses Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24:

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth’: and it was so.​

And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’

And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind’: and it was so.”

This again, if looked at from out of context, seems to support their case. Unfortunately for them the original words don’t help them. The original word for “bring forth” in verse 11 is “Dawshaw’” which means to sprout. The word in verses 20 and 24 is “Yawtsaw’” which means to go and populate.

Those were the main arguments for Theistic-Evolution. Here are some other problems with it.

All of the books in the Bible have a background and a context. The Psalms and Proverbs have a metaphorical feel, while books like the Gospels have documentary feels.

In Theistic-Evolution Genesis is not taken literally. They see it as a story written for people who could not understand things like evolution, though they hold that the other four books of the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, are historical.

Exodus is a book chronicling the journey of the descendants of Abraham as was Numbers and Deuteronomy. Leviticus is a book of laws. Four out of five are pretty good odds that then fifth book is also then historical.

The moral implications of the Theistic-Evolutionary theory are just as good to look at as the others.

The whole Bible is based around one central theme, God sending His son to save the world. That can be seen through the middle of the Bible with the prophets and with Jesus’ birth, life, and death. It can be seen in the end with Revelation. It can also be seen in the beginning with Genesis.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” Romans 5:12​

“And so it is written, ‘the first man, Adam, became a living soul,’ the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 15:45

As seen by these verses because of Adam sin entered the world, and because of the “second Adam”, Jesus, we can have life. Now in Theistic-Evolution there is mandatory death so that life can evolve, so by these verses the presence of death in the world, and in turn sin in the world, before the fall is not Biblical. Also if Theistic-Evolution is accepted there couldn’t have been a first Adam so there would be no reason for a second Adam, thus canceling out the main them of the Bible.

In closing one can see that the theory of Theistic-Evolution has many holes and has completely deteriorated under close scrutiny.

 

[chaoschristian]

Fake can mean those things. I'm not using the wrong word. I checked the dictionary before I wrote it.

So, which one of those meanings are you using?

 

[vossler]

okay y'all you may not take me for much because I'm new but I wrote a paper on this for one of my history classes... I dis agree with alot of what y'all are sayin... theistic evolution and all that jazz... please read the whole report.

First of all, welcome to Origins Theology.

Secondly, congratulations on a well written and researched paper, you did a great job!

It's great to see that at least some of our higher learning institutions are still open to such ideas.

Can I ask what school it was and what the grade was you received?

 

[chaoschristian]

Theistic-Evolution: Biblical truth or Atheistic Influence

Well, not doubt where this is going. And what is the point of this title if not to condemn TE outright, since the author never bothers to come back around and establish any sort of link between TE and atheism in a demonstrable and substantive manner?

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1.

The one thing that we all agree on here.

The first verse in the Bible clearly states that God created the universe.

No, it implies that only if you are reading the verse metaphorically. It literally states that God created something known as heaven and something known as earth. And while it later goes into detail as to the nature of earth, it is rather vague about the nature of heaven.

This was considered scientific fact for thousands of years

Not true if you think about it. Science as we understand it is a modern concept, but I'll allow that the Chinese and the Romans demonstrated some level of scientific understanding as evidenced by their civilizations. Yet I don't think that they would accept the creation of the universe by God as an established fact Really, for the vast majority of people within the Judeo-Christian trandition it was/is a matter of faith alone.

until Charles Darwin took ideas from the scientific minds of that day and pieced together the theory of Evolution.

Earlier scientists than Darwin set out to provide certain aspects of the Bible as scientific truth and ended up coming to the opposite conclusion. Poor Darwin. He must needs a chiropractor for all the weight he carries around on his shoulders.

This theory states that all living things, through a series of mutations, changed from random chemicals floating in a “soup” to the modern day versions that we can observe.

False! This is completely wrong. The teacher did point this out to you, yes?

Many Christians have held fast to the Creation account in the Bible but, over the years, some of the more “scientific” have come to interpret the Bible and the evidence for Creation in a different light, thus making a new theory.

These kids these days with their new fangles inventions. Why when I was a kid I had to walk up hill both ways to get faith, and I was happy with it!

This theory is called Theistic-Evolution. This theory states that God started the evolutionary processes and then sat back and watched. With this theory a Christian can believe in an old earth and the “facts” that evolutionists have discovered.

1. Theistic Evolution is not so much a scientific theory as a theological philosophy built upon both the premises of science and the premises of Christian faith. To say that it is only a scientific theory is, or to characterize it as such as you do here, is a misunderstanding of its substance.
2. I am one of the forum's hard-core adherants to theistic evolution. Even I don't believe that God just sat back and watched. That is deism. My position is that science reveals to us that God used natural processes, such as evolution, to bring about His Creation exactly as He intended and predicted. TEs, even me, believe that God's Will was and is ever present in the processes of Creation. Your choice of words implies that TEs don't believe in the presence of God's Will or that God was satisfied with whatever random outcome manifested itself. Not so.
3. Cart-before-the-horse. Christians have the choice of accepting what science reveals to us about Creation and then using those revelations to build a theology. The way you characterize it, a bunch of Christians were standing around wondering what would give them a good excuse to believe in an old Earth and then someone had the bright idea of creating TE as a rationalization.

The main argument for Theistic-Evolution is their interpretation of the word “day”. They argue that, as stated in 2 Peter 3:8

Again, another mischaracterization and misunderstanding of TE. I base my arguments for TE on the basis of observed natural phenomna and a reconciliation of those observations with a critical reading of the Bible. The interpretation of the word 'day' is a minor aspect of TE thinking.

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

When taken out of context and applied, this verse seems to make their case.

I don't know of one instance of any TE on this board ever making this case. We don't even need this in order to make our case.

One thing that most Theistic-Evolutionists seem to over look is the original Hebrew word. The original word for day used in Genesis is “Yom” this word by its self means a period of time but used with a number it means a number of days. In Genesis alone it is used 410 times with a number implying a literal number of days. Also when used with the words “evening” and “morning” it implies a single day. In Genesis it is used this way 23 times.

The plural of the word “Yom” is the word “yamim” which, used with the words “evening” and “morning”, would signify more than one day or many days.

Some other words which God could have used if He wanted to specify a long period of time are:

• “Qedem” which means ancient
• “Olam” which means everlasting
• “Dor” which just means a period of time
• “Tamid” which is continually

Another argument Theistic-Evolutionists use is the verses Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24:

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth’: and it was so.​

And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’

And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind’: and it was so.”

This again, if looked at from out of context, seems to support their case. Unfortunately for them the original words don’t help them. The original word for “bring forth” in verse 11 is “Dawshaw’” which means to sprout. The word in verses 20 and 24 is “Yawtsaw’” which means to go and populate.

Those were the main arguments for Theistic-Evolution. Here are some other problems with it.

Did you even bother to study TE or to interview TEs before writing this?

All of the books in the Bible have a background and a context.

Something on which we can agree.

The Psalms and Proverbs have a metaphorical feel, while books like the Gospels have documentary feels.

You do realize that there is a difference between 'background and context' and 'feel', yes? We can objectively discern the background and context for a book of the Bible and even parts within a book, as some books, (as in the case of Genesis) are an amalgamation of different parts. How a book feel is subjective.

In Theistic-Evolution Genesis is not taken literally. They see it as a story written for people who could not understand things like evolution, though they hold that the other four books of the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, are historical.

All of the books of the Pentateuch are historical, but each must be read critically, taking into account its background, context and content. It is not illogical to arrive at the conclusion that different books of the Pentateuch need different literal treatments in order to derive their best meaning and application.

Exodus is a book chronicling the journey of the descendants of Abraham as was Numbers and Deuteronomy. Leviticus is a book of laws. Four out of five are pretty good odds that then fifth book is also then historical.

Let's set aside the fact that TEs will generally agree that the Pentateuch is historical, thus making this a non-issue. Let's instead look at the logic presented here. Four out of five books feel historical, so the fifth book must be historical. Four out of five boxes are empty, so the fifth box must be empty. No, the fifth box has a 20% probability of being full, so the conclusion that it must be empty is false. In the case of the Pentateuch you have to actually examine each book on its own merits before determining whether or not its historical. And you have to be clear as to how you are defining historical too.

The moral implications of the Theistic-Evolutionary theory are just as good to look at as the others.

The whole Bible is based around one central theme, God sending His son to save the world. That can be seen through the middle of the Bible with the prophets and with Jesus’ birth, life, and death. It can be seen in the end with Revelation. It can also be seen in the beginning with Genesis.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” Romans 5:12​

“And so it is written, ‘the first man, Adam, became a living soul,’ the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 15:45

As seen by these verses because of Adam sin entered the world, and because of the “second Adam”, Jesus, we can have life. Now in Theistic-Evolution there is mandatory death so that life can evolve, so by these verses the presence of death in the world, and in turn sin in the world, before the fall is not Biblical. Also if Theistic-Evolution is accepted there couldn’t have been a first Adam so there would be no reason for a second Adam, thus canceling out the main them of the Bible.

Why does this misconception that TEs believe that sin is manifested in biology persist? One of the foundations of TE philosophy is science. Science is wholly indifferent to sin. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that I have ever seen about TE implies that sin is a manifestion of either biology or evolution. Sin is a metaphysical concept reserved for theology and philosophy. TEs also build their philosophy upon theology, Christian theology. A rather orthodox Christian theology that believes in original sin and the fallen nature of man. Science does nothing, can do nothing, to refute this. Again the author presents a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of TE.

In closing one can see that the theory of Theistic-Evolution has many holes and has completely deteriorated under close scrutiny.

Your entire paper has deteriorated under close scrutiny and is nothing more than a mischaracterization of Theistic-Evolution. Both your facts and your logic are lacking.

Regardless, welcome to the forum! Despite the fact that I just obliterated your history paper, I hope you do indeed stick around and use this forum to seek understanding, to learn, and to contribute.

 

[gluadys]

okay y'all you may not take me for much because I'm new but I wrote a paper on this for one of my history classes... I dis agree with alot of what y'all are sayin... theistic evolution and all that jazz... please read the whole report.

Hi, Pippin. Welcome to CF. The ride may be rough, but it can be fun.

]Theistic-Evolution: Biblical truth or Atheistic Influence

Since the aim of your essay is to dispute that TE is biblical truth, you are essentially linking TE with atheism. But evolution is not atheistic. And theism is the opposite of atheism.

Whether or not TE is biblical, it is definitely not atheistic.

Charles Darwin took ideas from the scientific minds of that day and pieced together the theory of Evolution. This theory states that all living things, through a series of mutations, changed from random chemicals floating in a “soup” to the modern day versions that we can observe.

First error. This is not what the theory of evolution says. What the theory of evolution says is that there will be changes in the distribution of alleles in a species gene pool each generation, and over time, these changes will result in new species.

Many Christians have held fast to the Creation account in the Bible but, over the years, some of the more “scientific” have come to interpret the Bible and the evidence for Creation in a different light, thus making a new theory. This theory is called Theistic-Evolution.

Second error. Theistic evolution is not a theory. It is a Christian interpretation of both the doctrine of Creation and the science of evolution that brings them into harmony with each other. It is theology, not theory.

This theory states that God started the evolutionary processes and then sat back and watched. With this theory a Christian can believe in an old earth and the “facts” that evolutionists have discovered.

Third error. This is not an accurate description of theistic evolution. Generally speaking TEs do not subscribe to the idea that God “sat back and watched”.

The main argument for Theistic-Evolution is their interpretation of the word “day”. They argue that, as stated in 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Still another error. This is not a TE argument. It is an argument in favour of the Day-Age version of Old Earth Creationism.

Another argument Theistic-Evolutionists use is the verses Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24:

Snip quotes

This again, if looked at from out of context, seems to support their case. Unfortunately for them the original words don’t help them. The original word for “bring forth” in verse 11 is “Dawshaw’” which means to sprout. The word in verses 20 and 24 is “Yawtsaw’” which means to go and populate.

You haven’t completed your argument here. How do the original meaning of these words show that a TE interpretation is incorrect?

In Theistic-Evolution Genesis is not taken literally. They see it as a story written for people who could not understand things like evolution,

That is not quite correct. They had the same capacity to understand evolution as we do. But they did not have the same store of needed background information.

though they hold that the other four books of the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, are historical.

That is not quite correct either. Genesis contains stories, which while more legend than history, probably describe historical people and events, and certainly refer to historical places. And the other books are not necessarily historical. Leviticus, for example, is almost entirely law, not history, and to some extent the law is idealized. Very few books of the bible are completely of one type. Most include a mixture of different kinds of writing.

Exodus is a book chronicling the journey of the descendants of Abraham as was Numbers and Deuteronomy. Leviticus is a book of laws. Four out of five are pretty good odds that then fifth book is also then historical.

Gambling is not the way the genre of a text is established. Each text has to be studied on a case by case basis.

The moral implications of the Theistic-Evolutionary theory are just as good to look at as the others.

Theistic Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a theory. As a scientific theory it has no moral implications. Science describes how things are. It says nothing about how things ought to be or how we ought to behave.

The whole Bible is based around one central theme, God sending His son to save the world. That can be seen through the middle of the Bible with the prophets and with Jesus’ birth, life, and death. It can be seen in the end with Revelation. It can also be seen in the beginning with Genesis.

Wonderful. Finally you have said something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

And nothing in evolution disputes or disagrees with this assessment.

Now in Theistic-Evolution there is mandatory death so that life can evolve

This is incorrect. It is not evolution that requires death. It is biology. Nothing biological can live forever.

Does not scripture agree with this? Paul tells us in his letter to Corinthians that our biological bodies must be changed into spiritual bodies so that mortality can be changed into immortality.

The bible does not say that Adam and Eve or any animal was created immortal. It says Adam and Eve were offered immortality through the Tree of Life, but they made another choice.

In closing one can see that the theory of Theistic-Evolution has many holes and has completely deteriorated under close scrutiny.

Well, once you have corrected your misconceptions about evolution and theistic evolution, you may be able to write a good essay without so many serious errors of fact in it.