Can the Bible and Evolution co-exist?

[Crusading_Ostrich]

What would the implications of Evolution (say its true for the argument) have on the Bible (says its true for the argument). Can both the ideas co-exist at the same time?
The initial contrast between the two would be in how the earth was formed. Evolution citing it took millions upon millions upon millions of years for such an event to happen and every living thing on earth came from a cell. The Bible citing that God made everything in 6 days, and that every living thing came from him. At this point there is already a schism between the two. Something HAS to be wrong. So either its the Bible or Evolution...

Evolution says fossils took millions of years to form. The Bible is silent on such an issue, however offers the Flood as a solution used today by many people. Why did fossils take so long to form? Is there any rate to speed up the processs like turning coal into diamond through extreme pressure? Granted, if the world was covered in a whole lot of water, then there would have been a heck of a lot of pressure. Evolution, and its proponents say the Flood never happened and there is no such evidence for the event. Things happened gradually over time.

Going back to the beginning (Genesis), if Evolution were true, then the theology of so much of the Church is screwed. Original sin? Adam & Eve were merely components of fiction and is allegorical. How then the doctrine of sin entering the world? Free choice? God has said to endowed ever person with free choice, so when in Evolution did this kick in? Was it that single celled organism? Did it have free choice? Or did the ancestors of humanity reach a certain plateau of development and God said "here, you're old enough now...have some free choice". Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first homo-sapiens...one and one though...doesn't make much sense to have only 2 homo-sapiens on the earth though. Or were Adam and Eve representitive of all the other homo-sapiens on the earth and because one messed up, they are all doomed? Doesn't seem like the thing God would do. Throwing the child out with the basket (thats not the right saying...but i hope you get my drift.)

Finally, Jesus Christ coming to earth. Was Jesus the Son of God through Adam and Eve? Or is he Jesus Christ the Son of God through a single-cell organism who grew a whole lot. In essence, God became an evolved being here on earth.

My question to all is can the Bible and Evolution co-exist? If they do, that means one of them is wrong. If it is Evolution, then the Bible is right. If it is Evolution, that means the Bible is wrong. And if parts of the Bible are fundamentally wrong (like blatant errors...not wording descripancies) then what makes the rest of it be able to be trusted?

 

[Tenacious-D]

Yes!

By the way, maybe Adam & Eve are archetypes meant to illustrate the ascent of Man to an ignorant Bronze Age people and not to be taken as fact.

 

[Dracil]

Sure. Because it's not the Bible that's wrong. It's the fallible interpretations by humans of the Bible that's wrong.

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

But Humans were the writers of the Bible inspired by God. If you still claim the Bible was God-inspired, but believe that some of the Bible is wrong. THEN GOD LIED.

 

[Dracil]

No, they wrote the Bible. The Bible is true. But YOUR interpretation may be wrong.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My question to all is can the Bible and Evolution co-exist? If they do, that means one of them is wrong. If it is Evolution, then the Bible is right. If it is Evolution, that means the Bible is wrong. And if parts of the Bible are fundamentally wrong (like blatant errors...not wording descripancies) then what makes the rest of it be able to be trusted?

Theistic Evolutionists do not say that the bible is fundamentally wrong with blatant errors, simply that some parts of the bible, based on their literary context, should not be interpreted as historical writings, which isn't to say that they are not truthful or even allegorical/symbolic. Some examples include Job and parts of Genesis.

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

Theistic Evolutionists do not say that the bible is fundamentally wrong with blatant errors, simply that some parts of the bible, based on their literary context, should not be interpreted as historical writings, which isn't to say that they are not truthful or even allegorical/symbolic. Some examples include Job and parts of Genesis.

Sorry...i'm not trying to label you are as hell-bound heretics.

Why should the beginning of the world be symbolic? Was there something to hide? What about sin, free-will? Could then Jesus be a symbol saying if we go around doing good things we'll get ahead?

Literary context... I don't quite follow you there, but will attempt. I believe the first part of Genesis was written in limeric style...like a poem (tis what a Bible College student told me)...does that mean it is false? Putting things into poem make it a lot easier to remember things...like guys remembering all of Homer and the Iliad.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Theistic Evolutionists do not say that the bible is fundamentally wrong with blatant errors, simply that some parts of the bible, based on their literary context, should not be interpreted as historical writings, which isn't to say that they are not truthful or even allegorical/symbolic. Some examples include Job and parts of Genesis.

By that I am agreeing with you and saying that they are truthful and not necessarily symbolic. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[Vance]

What would the implications of Evolution (say its true for the argument) have on the Bible (says its true for the argument). Can both the ideas co-exist at the same time?

They do co-exist at the same time. I guess you mean, can they both be true. The answer is absolutely yes.

The initial contrast between the two would be in how the earth was formed. Evolution citing it took millions upon millions upon millions of years for such an event to happen and every living thing on earth came from a cell. The Bible citing that God made everything in 6 days, and that every living thing came from him. At this point there is already a schism between the two. Something HAS to be wrong. So either its the Bible or Evolution...

First, evolution does not speak to how life first originated, or really even how old the earth is. But we can discuss the idea of an old earth at the same time, I suppose, since evolution did occur over all that time. Btw, just to make sure you know this, geologists concluded that the earth was incredibly old before the theory of evolution was even thought of. And it was Christian geologists who reached this conclusion. So, it would be incorrect to think that we believe in an old earth in order to accomodate evolution.

Second, you are begging the entire question of these forums to say that the Bible is stating literal history when it talks about the Creation days. This is the question we primarily discuss here. Evolution does, indeed, contradict a six 24-hour day creation 6,000 years ago. As does geology, astrophysics, and evidence from a dozen other disciplines. But evolution does not contradict the Scripture at all if the creation days are not read in that fashion. So, no absolute conflict, only a potential conflict depending on your interpretation.

I would recommend a book called the Genesis Debate, in which three of the major views within Christianity about how to read Genesis are presented by their proponents:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0970224508/ref=ase_eblaforum-20/102-8964789-2320131?v=glance&s=books

Evolution says fossils took millions of years to form. The Bible is silent on such an issue, however offers the Flood as a solution used today by many people. Why did fossils take so long to form? Is there any rate to speed up the processs like turning coal into diamond through extreme pressure? Granted, if the world was covered in a whole lot of water, then there would have been a heck of a lot of pressure. Evolution, and its proponents say the Flood never happened and there is no such evidence for the event. Things happened gradually over time.

But the idea of a global flood does not work at all as a solution, as is explained in great detail over in the Creation and Evolution forum with regularity. It is just wrong. You should not rely solely on Creationist sources regarding science issues since they are notoriously inaccurate and misleading. Check out my signature line.

Oh, and evolution does not just happen gradually over time. Sometimes it does, but often it happens more rapidly (in evolutionary time scales) due to puncuated equilibrium.

Going back to the beginning (Genesis), if Evolution were true, then the theology of so much of the Church is screwed. Original sin? Adam & Eve were merely components of fiction and is allegorical. How then the doctrine of sin entering the world? Free choice? God has said to endowed ever person with free choice, so when in Evolution did this kick in? Was it that single celled organism? Did it have free choice? Or did the ancestors of humanity reach a certain plateau of development and God said "here, you're old enough now...have some free choice". Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first homo-sapiens...one and one though...doesn't make much sense to have only 2 homo-sapiens on the earth though. Or were Adam and Eve representitive of all the other homo-sapiens on the earth and because one messed up, they are all doomed? Doesn't seem like the thing God would do. Throwing the child out with the basket (thats not the right saying...but i hope you get my drift.)

There are a number of possibilities you are ignoring. First, Adam and Eve could be symbolic for humanity as a whole (since one of the definitions of Adam is "mankind"). When God breathed His Spirit into Man, everything changed. We have no idea when He did this. Or some others consider the possibility that Adam and Eve were indeed literal individuals that God selected and placed in the Garden (notice the two different accounts of Creation). Regardless, the theology is not screwed at all, as you put it.

Think about this. If accepting evolution caused such problems with the theology of Christianity, how could it be that most Christians in the world accept evolution without a theological problem at all. They believe the same theological points you do, regardless. So, your particular reading of Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously not as essential to proper theology as you would think.

Finally, Jesus Christ coming to earth. Was Jesus the Son of God through Adam and Eve? Or is he Jesus Christ the Son of God through a single-cell organism who grew a whole lot. In essence, God became an evolved being here on earth.

Jesus was born of Mary, and was thus human (as well as God, of course) so it makes no difference how Mary ancestors got to be human. Why is being human so much better than being any other living organism? It is only the fact that God has infused His Spirit into humans which makes us special. So, since this infusion had occured long, long before Jesus came to earth, he came into a being which WAS infused with that Spirit unlike any earlier species from which humans developed.

My question to all is can the Bible and Evolution co-exist? If they do, that means one of them is wrong. If it is Evolution, then the Bible is right. If it is Evolution, that means the Bible is wrong. And if parts of the Bible are fundamentally wrong (like blatant errors...not wording descripancies) then what makes the rest of it be able to be trusted?

No, it does not mean one of them is wrong at all. All that can be wrong is either Man's interpretation of God's Creation or Man's interpretation of God's Scripture. Why would you assume that Man is better at interpreting God's Scripture than His Creation? Further, you speak about Genesis 1 and 2 as if there is only one interpretation held by Christians (that of a literal six day creation period 6,000 years ago). This has NEVER been the only reading, and is not even the dominant reading within the Body of Christ.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry...i'm not trying to label you are as hell-bound heretics.

Why should the beginning of the world be symbolic? Was there something to hide?

The beginning of the world was historical. But the biblical description of the beginning of the world need not be. In fact, it is probably better that it is not.

Think of it this way. If the biblical author had tried to write a historical account of the beginning of the world, he would have used the scientific concepts of his time. (In fact he did on day 2 when he describes the formation of the firmament---a broad solid expanse overarching the earth and capable of bearing the weight of the waters above it.)

That means that when science moves on and discovers there is no firmament, only atmosphere and space, it calls into question the accuracy of the scripture.

But, couldn't God have inspired the author to write using modern scientific concepts?

Sure, but there are two problems. 1) Modern concepts would not make sense to the people of biblical times, and 2) eventually modern concepts will be outmoded as well.

Any description of the beginning of the world that is intended to be a historical account will necessarily be tied to the scientific concepts of some point in human history. And all of these scientific concepts are partial and provisional--including our own.

But it is important that the creation story speak to all peoples of all cultures in all historical and scientific frameworks. So we need a creation account that transcends the limitations of history and science.

And a non-historical, archetypal, symbolical account fits the bill. It does the job of conveying the essential truths we need to know about God, creation and ourselves better than any account that gets bogged down in the scientific trappings of one historical epoch.

And yes, it does make it a lot easier to remember too.

 

[danclang]

There are a lot of things spoken here. Basically, one side believes that in order for the Bible to be Word of God than it has to be perfect. If so, then the evolution is a fallacy because it does not say that Earth was built in seven days. Six really with a day off. I follow the logic.
I also understand that all humans no matter how righteous has a bias. Cultural biases are especially hard to identify within that cultural setting. So when you say God is perfect and then read the Bible you see that God created the earth in six days and you have to believe that is absolutely true.
Wait a minute though. Seven day creation and the flood was more a product of the locality of the people who wrote the passages. You have to agree to the fact that no human was present during creation. Unless you are a Calvinist (Calvinist, please don't hammer me on this. I am just making a point), you also believe in your free-will. Another point to add. You also believe all are sinners even after accepting Salvation from God.
So (here's my point) God-inspired does not mean perfect because the instrument is not perfect. God in order to help us understand some things uses ideas which we can relate to. Genesis is not a result of scientific research. It is a religious book. Can't state that strongly enough. To equate the Bible with God is (in my opinion) idolatry. Triune God not Quardrane God.

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

So now we know more than the Bible? God has revealed to us a "deeper" level of insight?
For argument, if God has revealed this to us, why hasn't he more clearly revealed that he created it. IF he now says, well done earthlings, you have found out your true roots. Would he not make himself known as the source of those roots? His signature?

 

[versastyle]

For argument, if God has revealed this to us, why hasn't he more clearly revealed that he created it. IF he now says, well done earthlings, you have found out your true roots. Would he not make himself known as the source of those roots? His signature?

I think He has.

 

[Vance]

God told us all that we needed to know about His Creative process in Scripture and did it amazingly well. Very clever, if you ask me, to use a medium of presentation of truth that would convey the essential messages to every generation:

God created everything. God is in charge of everything. God created Man in His image (not His physical image of course, since He has none) and gave us a special ability to interact with Him not given to any other part of His creation. God gave Man the free will to choose his or her fate, and we have chosen sinful selfishness which has created a state of spiritual death from which we are in need of redemption. Oh, and God wants us to rest one day out of seven. And lots of other great truths packed into just a few short chapters.

God did not give us the details of the mechanics and processes He used for Creation because those have nothing to do with the truths set out above. He has let us discover how rainbows show up, how far the moon is from the earth, and a bazillion other amazing facts about our earth, and universe, past and present. He could not possibly have told us all of it, and why should He?

So, no, we don't know more about the Bible. We understand the truths about what God revealed (those stated above) no more insightfully or less so than our forebears, which again, shows the amazing hand of God in the text. We know more about how the earth works and how and when God may have done what He did, but these are inconsequential bits of knowledge compared to the greater truths.

 

[Singing Bush]

Why should the beginning of the world be symbolic? Was there something to hide? What about sin, free-will?

I'm assuming like most Christians you do not see the Genesis account of the world's creation to be simply a trivial historical record of no import do you? No, I imagine you get a lot of spiritual truths out of it too, especially regarding sin and our relation to God. Thus, even if not a word of it is factually true but all an allegory of sorts, the spiritual message still is.


That said, to answer your question. Why should the beginning of the world not be symbolic? Why's there any reason to believe God was trying to hide something? I think many creationists get so used to understanding the Bible in one and only one way that even conceiving of it as being any other way is somehow wrong. If the Bible had always been interpreted by you and your close friends as being a message about our spiritual reality and then someone came one day and declared that it also had to be a factual detailing of Earth's first days you'd be asking, "why should an allegory about our spiritual natures necessarily be based on a historical story of creation?"

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ostrich - often one makes a post, but is searching around for an illustration.

Thank you for providing one. Could I refer readers of my post on the TE sub-forum thread "Calling all TEs - Symposium" to Ostrich's posts which I think illustrate my central argument rather well.

 

[danclang]

Ostrich:
Because of what you believe, you see that creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. I don't.
The first part of Genesis is not historical. Available data only goes back as far as when written language was established (roughly 10,000 years ago). Prior to that communication was done orally.
Look, I am not refuting truth of Bible. As Vance said, remember Geocentricism? I love and aim to glorify God. To see scientific fact and say it can't be true because the Bible authors did not write "On the second day God said to the single cell organism "evolve into multiple cell organism" and it was good." is just plain silly