Bible-Creation-Evolution

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

This is a discussion for those who claim to be a Holy Bible believing Christian and at the same time claim to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

All things pertaining to the Bible must be backed up by Bible Scripture.
All things pertaining to Evolution must be sited from a credible source

The Bible is based on God and Him being the creator of man without any evidence of evolution in the process of creating him a man.

The Theory of Evolution is based key observations and inferences drawn from them. A process of random variables persuaded by the changing conditions of the Earth itself. Without any evidence of a Creator, or a Creator creating a man.

How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

Both believers of Evolution without belief in God and Bible believers without the belief in evolution are welcome and encouraged to comment so that we can keep continuity in both sides of the discussion without blurring the Theory of Evolution or the Word of God.

Delphiki · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
This is a discussion for those who claim to be Holy Bible believers and at the same time claim to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The rules are:
1. We can not add our own interpretation of the literal words of the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin.

You're making the mistake that scientific theories do not change, or even supposed to change. If you go by the exact and literal words of Darwin alone, then you're working with a severely outdated understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Remember, Darwin proposed it -- There's tons he would be able to learn from what we know today and the current Theory of Evolution.

It would be like comparing your bible to Galileo's understanding of astronomy to the bible... Which, while still backed up by far more evidence, isn't actually the same as what we know about astronomy today. Galileo, for example, would have no idea what Gliese589 is.

Remember, as we make new discoveries and gain new knowledge and information, their related theories become more accurate.

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

Delphiki said:
You're making the mistake that scientific theories do not change, or even supposed to change. If you go by the exact and literal words of Darwin alone, then you're working with a severely outdated understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Remember, Darwin proposed it -- There's tons he would be able to learn from what we know today and the current Theory of Evolution.

It would be like comparing your bible to Galileo's understanding of astronomy to the bible... Which, while still backed up by far more evidence, isn't actually the same as what we know about astronomy today. Galileo, for example, would have no idea what Gliese589 is.

Remember, as we make new discoveries and gain new knowledge and information, their related theories become more accurate.

Thanks. I have edited rule #1 to fit the ToE without exception.

GoSeminoles! · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

There is no way to reconcile a literal interpretation of Genesis with science.

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

GoSeminoles! said:
There is no way to reconcile a literal interpretation of Genesis with science.

If you are a Bible believing Christian, then you believe God before Science in the sense that God created science and the laws thereof.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
The Bible is based on God and Him being the creator of man without any evidence of evolution in the process of creating him a man.

The Theory of Evolution is based key observations and inferences drawn from them. A process of random variables persuaded by the changing conditions of the Earth itself. Without any evidence of a Creator, or a Creator creating a man.

Pretty much. The theory doesn't preclude God, though, nor does it prevent a Theistic Evolutionist (TE) from believing that God also had a hand in how species evolved

1611AV said:
How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

Both believers of Evolution without belief in God and Bible believers without the belief in evolution are welcome and encouraged to comment so that we can keep continuity in both sides of the discussion without blurring the Theory of Evolution or the Word of God.

A literal interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with the mainstream theory of evolution. I've heard TE's put it like this: when there's a conflict between our interpretation of God's Word and our observation of God's Creation, we should err on the side of Creation.

elopez · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

Genesis does not portray a consistent chronological account of creation, which can be evidenced by comparing the first and fourth days of creation and noticing the apparent similarities between them: the creation of light and darkness and the separation of them. This leads me to think that there are two descriptions of one single event and that the order is not chronological but topical. Not only this, but the writing style these comparative verses most reflects is a poetic method called parallelism.

This is why I think Genesis does not offer scientific data or specifics for creation, but rather states the theological truth that God created.

GoSeminoles! · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
If you are a Bible believing Christian, then you believe God before Science in the sense that God created science and the laws thereof.

I agree that many such Christians certainly view the problem that way. I am only commenting that one cannot reconcile the two sources if Genesis is taken literally. Genesis lays out an entirely different natural history of earth which greatly contradicts science, be it geology, astronomy, or biology.

Genesis as a metaphor or a parable may be reconciled with science, as many Christians have done, but a figurative Genesis is not in your groundrules.

Nathan Poe · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
If you are a Bible believing Christian, then you believe God before Science in the sense that God created science and the laws thereof.

But God did not create the Bible -- the Bible is man's record of their relationship with God -- Not God's personal diary, autobiography, "How-to" manual, or any of the other ludicrous things that it's been called by well-meaning believers.

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

GoSeminoles! said:
I agree that many such Christians certainly view the problem that way. I am only commenting that one cannot reconcile the two sources if Genesis is taken literally. Genesis lays out an entirely different natural history of earth which greatly contradicts science, be it geology, astronomy, or biology.

Genesis as a metaphor or a parable may be reconciled with science, as many Christians have done, but a figurative Genesis is not in your groundrules.

Genesis lays out an entirely different natural history of earth which greatly contradicts science, be it geology, astronomy, or biology.

I agree with you 100%. That is why I find it impossible to be a Bible believing Christian and also believe the Theory of Evolution.

Delphiki · Feb 18, 2011

I would just say:

"We can only consider the Theory of Evolution."

It should suffice.

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

elopez said:
Genesis does not portray a consistent chronological account of creation, which can be evidenced by comparing the first and fourth days of creation and noticing the apparent similarities between them: the creation of light and darkness and the separation of them. This leads me to think that there are two descriptions of one single event and that the order is not chronological but topical. Not only this, but the writing style these comparative verses most reflects is a poetic method called parallelism.

This is why I think Genesis does not offer scientific data or specifics for creation, but rather states the theological truth that God created.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his NOSTRILS the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

For a Bible believing Christian, wether this happened on the 1st 4th or 6th day, it does make Genesis 2:7 any less true.

elopez · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his NOSTRILS the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

For a Bible believing Christian, wether this happened on the 1st 4th or 6th day, it does make Genesis 2:7 any less true.

I'm positive I'm violating your number two rule, but how can you ask someone how they believe what they do and then request not for them to provide a scriptural basis for it?

I don't think you understood my objection, as this does not address it. I was talking about the creation of light as appeared in Genesis 1:3-5, and then repeated again in Genesis 1:14-19. Why are there are two descriptions of the one single event, if indeed Genesis is meant to literally represent creation?

sfs · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
This is a discussion for those who claim to be a Holy Bible believing Christian and at the same time claim to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The rules are:
1. We can not add our own interpretation of the literal Theory of Evolution. (keep in mind you believe the way you do at this present time based on evidence found up to this present time)

2. We can not add our own interpretation of the literal words of the Bible by the Lord God.

Your rules make discussion impossible. The literal words of the Bible don't mean anything until we interpret them, and there is no such thing as "the literal Theory of Evolution"; even if there were, the theory would need interpretation. So what's left to discuss? How do I compare words in Hebrew that I'm not allowed to read (since every act of reading is a personal interpretation) with a theory I'm not supposed to try to understand (since understanding a theory is also an act of interpretation)?

You're also trying to force people to adopt your own personal interpretation of the Bible, even while you're rejecting individual interpretations. That's what you're doing when you specify the literal words of the Bible; belief in the literal truth of the Bible is not required to believe the Bible.

Nathan Poe · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
I agree with you 100%. That is why I find it impossible to be a Bible believing Christian and also believe the Theory of Evolution.

But absolute literalism is hardly necessary to be a Christian.

One need not choose to read every single line and story in the Bible as literal, historical fact in order to be "Bible Believing." The Bible is chock full of myths, parables, figurative and poetic language, and the like. Could it be that one is a "Bible Believer" And still be mistaken about the nature of what they're believing in?

Jaxy H · Feb 18, 2011

elopez said:
Genesis does not portray a consistent chronological account of creation, which can be evidenced by comparing the first and fourth days of creation and noticing the apparent similarities between them: the creation of light and darkness and the separation of them. This leads me to think that there are two descriptions of one single event and that the order is not chronological but topical. Not only this, but the writing style these comparative verses most reflects is a poetic method called parallelism.

This is why I think Genesis does not offer scientific data or specifics for creation, but rather states the theological truth that God created.

Nathan Poe said:
But God did not create the Bible -- the Bible is man's record of their relationship with God -- Not God's personal diary, autobiography, "How-to" manual, or any of the other ludicrous things that it's been called by well-meaning believers.

Nathan Poe said:
But absolute literalism is hardly necessary to be a Christian.

One need not choose to read every single line and story in the Bible as literal, historical fact in order to be "Bible Believing." The Bible is chock full of myths, parables, figurative and poetic language, and the like. Could it be that one is a "Bible Believer" And still be mistaken about the nature of what they're believing in?

Right I am agreeing with all these posts. You can be a "Bible-believing" Christian and still believe that the earth is ancient and Creation took a good long while (and is still going on, as we see when powerful telescopes transmit images of new galaxies being born!).

The overarching themes of the Bible: sin's separating man from God, Christ's sacrifice providing a way for redemption, and His resurrection preparing the way for our eternal life -- these are not changed whether you believe in a literal 7-day creation or a longer one. What is time to God, anyway? Personally I believe Genesis gives a poetic account of creation, and that scientists and astronomers are discovering the literal account as we go.

sandwiches · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
This is a discussion for those who claim to be a Holy Bible believing Christian and at the same time claim to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The rules are:
1. We can not add our own interpretation of the literal Theory of Evolution. (keep in mind you believe the way you do at this present time based on evidence found up to this present time)

2. We can not add our own interpretation of the literal words of the Bible by the Lord God.

3. All things pertaining to the Bible must be backed up by Scripture.

The Bible is based on God and Him being the creator of man without any evidence of evolution in the process of creating him a man.

The Theory of Evolution is based key observations and inferences drawn from them. A process of random variables persuaded by the changing conditions of the Earth itself. Without any evidence of a Creator, or a Creator creating a man.

How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

Both believers of Evolution without belief in God and Bible believers without the belief in evolution are welcome and encouraged to comment so that we can keep continuity in both sides of the discussion without blurring the Theory of Evolution or the Word of God.

I honestly don't think you can truly 100% mesh a true literal reading of the Bible and evolution. In fact, I don't think you can mesh reality with a true, 100% literal reading of the Bible and I have yet to meet a single person who takes 100% of the Bible literally. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Even self-professed Bible 'literalists' such as AV1611VET are not true literalist and always end up with their own interpretations. For instance, if we accept a literal reading of the Bible, the Earth has pillars (Job 9:6) and Jesus is a vine (John 15: 1-6.)

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

elopez said:
I'm positive I'm violating your number two rule, but how can you ask someone how they believe what they do and then request not for them to provide a scriptural basis for it?

I don't think you understood my objection, as this does not address it. I was talking about the creation of light as appeared in Genesis 1:3-5, and then repeated again in Genesis 1:14-19. Why are there are two descriptions of the one single event, if indeed Genesis is meant to literally represent creation?

Ok, I see what you are saying and by the way you made a good point about providing scripture to back Biblical argument.

Here we have Gen 1:3-5

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

In verse 3 God create light. (Just light nothing created producing the light)
In verse 4 God divided the light from darkness
In verse 5 He called the light Day and the darkness he called Night.
Just as we do today. We don't say light time or dark time. We say Day Time and Night Time, Morning and Evening

Now if we look at Gen 1:14-19 We see:
In verse 16 God creating two great lights, The greater to rule the Day and the lesser to rule the Night
In verse 18 He gave them rule over the day and night and gave them power to divide the light from the darkness where in verse 4 God himself was dividing light from darkness.

Genesis 1:14-19

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So read word for word (Literally), They are two completely different events.

Now I don't see what that has to do with proof of God creating by evolution but I just wanted to illustrate that this could be explained without private interpretation. The Bible is Crystal Clear in the account of Creation without Evolution.

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

sandwiches said:
I honestly don't think you can truly 100% mesh a true literal reading of the Bible and evolution. In fact, I don't think you can mesh reality with a true, 100% literal reading of the Bible and I have yet to meet a single person who takes 100% of the Bible literally. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Even self-professed Bible 'literalists' such as AV1611VET are not true literalist and always end up with their own interpretations. For instance, if we accept a literal reading of the Bible, the Earth has pillars (Job 9:6) and Jesus is a vine (John 15: 1-6.)

A true Bible believing Christian reads in the Bible that not all things are earthly but Spiritual.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

AV1611VET is a beloved Brother in the Lord but he nor I nor any man is the Authority. to a Bible Believing Christian, Gods Word is the only Authority.

sandwiches · Feb 18, 2011

1611AV said:
A true Bible believing Christian reads in the Bible that not all things are earthly but Spiritual.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

AV1611VET is a beloved Brother in the Lord but he nor I nor any man is the Authority. to a Bible Believing Christian, Gods Word is the only Authority.

That doesn't address what I said. Here are the two choices when it comes to literalism:

1) The Bible is 100% literally true and Jesus is a vine.
2) The Bible is contains metaphors, allegory, and idioms making it only PARTIALLY true and Jesus wasn't a vine.

Now, if we take option 1, then Genesis has to be taken as is and it doesn't mesh with evolution.

If we take option 2, then Genesis doesn't have to be taken as is and it could merely be poetic language (like Jesus being a Vine.)

Bible-Creation-Evolution

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Well-Known Member

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

GoSeminoles!

Guest

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Contributor

Well-Known Member

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Well-Known Member

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Well-Known Member

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency