Bible vs. human evolution

[coolguybrad]

I agree with you, but there are many Christians who believe either (a) that stories must be historically accurate to be of value or, perhaps more common, (b) that the Genesis account reads as an historical narrative, and therefore must be historical to be true. My point is that both arguments are inconsistent with an honest reading of Scripture.

With some, when faith is challenged by discernment, their life falls apart.

Discernment in scripture does not seem to be a common ability among many Christians. Black and white is safer.

 

[UpperEschelon]

We seem to have drifted rather quickly from the point of the OP. The OP argued that evolution is clearly contradicted by Scripture. Yet, the discussion here seems to be focused on the perceived strengths/weaknesses of evolutionary science. Yet, the threshold question has remained unanswered and barely addressed: Is belief in evolution, regardless of its relative strength or weakness as a scientific theory, consistent with Scripture?

So to get back on topic...

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen1:27)

"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 being." (Gen 2:7)

Here is the point I am trying to make. Evolutionary theory is forced to view modern humans as being the product of an evolutionary gradient, naturally. We would essentially have to be products of lesser, primitive, debase humanoids who were void of intellect and reason who"evolved" over large periods of time.

What is genesis telling us? God took an action, He took the dust of the earth and breathed His breath into "man's nostrils" and man became a living being. At that moment when God created man, man came into existence carrying God's image. Hence, man was created at that point in time with consciousness, reason, intellect, and the full faculties which define the human experience as we know it to be.

How are these two explanations even remotely compatible?

 

[coolguybrad]

"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 being." (Gen 2:7)

How are these two explanations even remotely compatible?

You answered your question in your post of scripture. Man is not made up of dust.

 

[UpperEschelon]

You answered your question in your post of scripture. Man is not made up of dust.

I do believe it says God formed man of the dust of the ground. What other significance does "dust" have in this passage?

 

[UpperEschelon]

You answered your question in your post of scripture. Man is not made up of dust.

Also, that is far from answering my own question. Did you not read my entire post?...

 

[coolguybrad]

I do believe it says God formed man of the dust of the ground. What other significance does "dust" have in this passage?

Well if we read the scripture literally, it means that man is made from dust, but this is not true. We have water, muscles, proteins, etc. We are not made up of dust, meaning, the story of Adam and Eve and creation, is just that; a story.

Why literal in one sense, but not the other? Exactly, its because its not to be taken literally. Otherwise God lied and said man is made up of dust when He actually made us out of other things.

 

[Assyrian]

So to get back on topic...

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen1:27)

"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 being." (Gen 2:7)

Here is the point I am trying to make. Evolutionary theory is forced to view modern humans as being the product of an evolutionary gradient, naturally. We would essentially have to be products of lesser, primitive, debase humanoids who were void of intellect and reason who"evolved" over large periods of time.

What is genesis telling us? God took an action, He took the dust of the earth and breathed His breath into "man's nostrils" and man became a living being. At that moment when God created man, man came into existence carrying God's image. Hence, man was created at that point in time with consciousness, reason, intellect, and the full faculties which define the human experience as we know it to be.

How are these two explanations even remotely compatible?

How is shepherd dying for his sheep compatible with a carpenter and wandering preacher nailed to a cross by the Romans?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

What I don't get is why some people say Cain married his sister, although the bible doesn't actually say that. You have to use conjecture, NO WAY AROUND IT. So why would it not also be a possibility that God created others besides Adam and Eve, also using conjecture?

Conjecture, or the Book of Jubilees,

"And Cain took Awan, his sister, to be his wife, and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee." - Jubilees 4:9a



-CryptoLutheran

 

[coolguybrad]

Conjecture, or the Book of Jubilees,

"And Cain took Awan, his sister, to be his wife, and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee." - Jubilees 4:9a



-CryptoLutheran

Hahaha nice!

 

[dies-l]

So to get back on topic...

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen1:27)

"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 being." (Gen 2:7)

Here is the point I am trying to make. Evolutionary theory is forced to view modern humans as being the product of an evolutionary gradient, naturally. We would essentially have to be products of lesser, primitive, debase humanoids who were void of intellect and reason who"evolved" over large periods of time.

What is genesis telling us? God took an action, He took the dust of the earth and breathed His breath into "man's nostrils" and man became a living being. At that moment when God created man, man came into existence carrying God's image. Hence, man was created at that point in time with consciousness, reason, intellect, and the full faculties which define the human experience as we know it to be.

How are these two explanations even remotely compatible?

It would seem that you have already answered your own question: symbolism. Now, it would appear that you don't believe that the Genesis account is symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, or otherwise non-historical. However, a careful reading of the Genesis account indicates that an historical/scientific interpretation is clearly inappropriate.

In addition to the examples that I have already provided, here is another:

The structure of Genesis 1 follows a pattern common in Hebrew poetic literature. It follows an a,b,c,a',b',c' pattern.

A: Day 1 -- Light/Darkness -- Day/night
B: Day 2 -- Sky to separate water from water (where is this celestial water source, btw?)
C: Day 3 -- Land & vegetation
A': Day 4 -- Daytime and nighttime lights (sun, moon, stars -- btw, note that this description is rather inconsistent with well established modern astronomy, which holds that the moon is not a "light", but merely a reflector).
B': Day 5 -- Sky and water creatures.
C': Day 6 -- Land creatures and finally man & woman together.

Not also how the explicit sequencing of the creation poem in chapter 1 directly contradicts the sequencing in the creation story of chapter 2. In the latter, man is created before vegetation and animals, and woman is created last.

If these are intended to be two separate allegories that express the same point, this all makes sense. If they are two separate accounts of what actually happened at onset of creation, one of them is wrong. I prefer to shy away from interpretations of Scripture that indicate that Scripture contains error.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Micro-evolution is also called lateral adeptation which is a shift in existing genetic information in that kind.
Macro- evolution is an increase in genetic information and it has never been observed.
Many evolutionists use examples of lateral adeptation as "proof" of macro-evolution. Yet, a dog stays a dog and a pig stays a pig with no new genetic information.

You are not describing evolutionary theory, you are creating a strawman version of evolution.

Evolution does not say that there is an "increase in genetic information", that's Creationist mumbo-jumbo.

Genetic information does change. You call that "micro-evolution", the rest of the human race calls it evolution.

Information is not lost or gained, it changes. A series of small changes over the course of millions of years add up to an observable "large" change. But it required thousands of generations for those small changes to become an observable large change.

Nobody says that "new information" somehow gets added, but rather than at the genetic and molecular level changes happen. Yes, given enough time and enough "micro-evolution" a dinosaur will grow feathers, wings and lo and behold you have that seagull a hundred million years later rummaging through your garbage. Nothing "new" was added, but millions of years of micro-adaptations have added up with each generation of offspring to create a large observable evolutionary change.

If I have a string of binary, which act like on/off switches that look like 000101011100011 that but some of those switches turn off/on to become 100001111000111 nothing NEW has been added; but there is an obvious change in the nature of the information. The same amount of information is there. Evolution is not the addition of things to an existing organism; like taking feet and gluing them onto a fish, it is the mutation, adaptation and change of existing genetic information over the slow course of millions of years and thousands of generations of organic life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[UpperEschelon]

Well if we read the scripture literally, it means that man is made from dust, but this is not true. We have water, muscles, proteins, etc. We are not made up of dust, meaning, the story of Adam and Eve and creation, is just that; a story.

Why literal in one sense, but not the other? Exactly, its because its not to be taken literally. Otherwise God lied and said man is made up of dust when He actually made us out of other things.

God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, so your assumption is already erroneous off the bat, that since we are made of muscle, water, protein, it is impossible that "God made us of dust". There is no need to lie on God's part. The passage would indicate that man was made from the dust of the earth, that was simply the medium God used to create mankind. And yet despite the fact we are being told of God taking a specific, directed action in forming man from dust (it really is inescapable), you still conclude it is not "real" and just a story.

 

[coolguybrad]

God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, so your assumption is already erroneous off the bat, that since we are made of muscle, water, protein, it is impossible that "God made us of dust". There is no need to lie on God's part. The passage would indicate that man was made from the dust of the earth, that was simply the medium God used to create mankind. And yet despite the fact we are being told of God taking a specific, directed action in forming man from dust (it really is inescapable), you still conclude it is not "real" and just a story.

No scripture indicates God created the universe from nothing.

I don't know about you but when someone tells me they are making something of dirt, I would usually get an image of some brown material, that of a sculpture of some sort. I very easily can make a man from dirt.

Obviously, however, mankind is not a bunch of dirt people. So you have to say, well...ummm...yeah...well He changed dirt to man, but thats not what the scripture actually says.

This however is man made from dirt:

 

[UpperEschelon]

No scripture indicates God created the universe from nothing.

All physical matter (and the universe in its entirety) proceeded from God at His spoken word. In the beginning there was nothing, formlessness, the void. Scripture tells us just that, He created all things without anything existing prior.

I don't know about you but when someone tells me they are making something of dirt, I would usually get an image of some brown material, that of a sculpture of some sort. I very easily can make a man from dirt.

Are you God?

Obviously, however, mankind is not a bunch of dirt people. So you have to say, well...ummm...yeah...well He changed dirt to man, but thats not what the scripture actually says.

Despite the fact that is exactly what scripture is telling us explicitly, you continue to say otherwise...?

 

[coolguybrad]

All physical matter (and the universe in its entirety) proceeded from God at His spoken word. In the beginning there was nothing, formlessness, the void. Scripture tells us just that, He created all things without anything existing prior.

Actually it says:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth<no mention of nothingness>.<large gap of who knows what>Now the earth was formless and empty <the earth existed otherwise there wouldnt be characteristics attached to it, perhaps it would have been better to say "now the earth didn't exist quite yet" if it truly wasnt already there or something of that nature>, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. <- specifically telling us the earth had some water on it. Obviously formless and void things can't contain water.

Despite the fact that is exactly what scripture is telling us explicitly, you continue to say otherwise...?

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So God made a dust man made of dust, then breathed miracle life into His dusty nostrils, then we had a man made of dust walking around living just like a man made of skin, bones, and muscles, although made of dust. When does God make him into skin and bones? Never.

Its obviously not to be taken literally.

 

[pgp_protector]

With some, when faith is challenged by discernment, their life falls apart.

Discernment in scripture does not seem to be a common ability among many Christians. Black and white is safer.

Black & White may be "easer" but does yo no good when most of the world has grays in it.

 

[UpperEschelon]

...B: Day 2 -- Sky to separate water from water (where is this celestial water source, btw?)

They are still there and evidently must transcend the sphere of the physical universe. It would make sense, given that God did not assign definitive boundaries or physicality to them.

"Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens." (Psalm 148:4)

"The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters." (Psalm 29:3)

"Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:" (Psalm 104:3)

"And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:" (Revelations 14:2)

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." (Revelations 19:6)

"And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (Revelations 1:15)

"And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings." (Ezekiel 1:24)

"And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east. His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory." (Ezekiel 43:2)

"And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies" (2 Samuel 22:12)

"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." (Psalm 18:11)

It's off topic, but these waters would essentially be the boundary separating the second and third heavens.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Actually it says:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth<no mention of nothingness>.<large gap of who knows what>Now the earth was formless and empty <the earth existed otherwise there wouldnt be characteristics attached to it, perhaps it would have been better to say "now the earth didn't exist quite yet" if it truly wasnt already there or something of that nature>, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. <- specifically telling us the earth had some water on it. Obviously formless and void things can't contain water.



the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So God made a dust man made of dust, then breathed miracle life into His dusty nostrils, then we had a man made of dust walking around living just like a man made of skin, bones, and muscles, although made of dust. When does God make him into skin and bones? Never.

Its obviously not to be taken literally.

You're putting God in a box and saying that what is being relayed to us is impossible, hence you are using own logic to try and rationalize away the passage which would mean you're placing your opinion above the revelation of God's word. It is also not possible that Jesus walked on water, He must have found some sort of shallow section to tread over.

 

[coolguybrad]

You're putting God in a box and saying that what is being relayed to us is impossible, hence you are using own logic to try and rationilize away the passage which would mean you're placing your opinion above the revelation of God's word.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said, thats not what the scripture says.

See the difference?

-God made man from dust = false <-genesis ( man is not dust)
Dust is dust, man is man. God cannot make man = dust, or dust = man. Logically false. This is actually delusional thinking.

-God changed dust to a man = true <- this is what you do to genesis with your own interpretation, to make sense of it all, although its NOT literal.
God can change dust to man. Logically not impossible, however impractical and unnatural it is.

 

[dies-l]

They are still there and evidently must transcend the sphere of the physical universe. It would make sense, given that God did not assign definitive boundaries or physicality to them.

"Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens." (Psalm 148:4)

"The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters." (Psalm 29:3)

"Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:" (Psalm 104:3)

"And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:" (Revelations 14:2)

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." (Revelations 19:6)

"And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (Revelations 1:15)

"And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings." (Ezekiel 1:24)

"And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east. His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory." (Ezekiel 43:2)

"And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies" (2 Samuel 22:12)

"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." (Psalm 18:11)

It's off topic, but these waters would essentially be the boundary separating the second and third heavens.

It's not off topic, but it is interesting that you address only a very small part of my entire argument, which is itself a side-comment showing one small piece of evidence pointing to a much larger picture. Interesting also that, to make your point, you cite passages of Scripture from Hebrew poetry and Hebrew and Christian apocalyptic literature.