Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

Why did God take time to specifically dictate chapter 2 of Genesis? The chapter is important. In that chapter He specifically says that Adam and Eve were created not like animals. They were created special (set apart, holy), in God’s image and likeness (good, intelligent, creative, etc), alive by the breath (aka spirit) of God. And marriage was created as a symbol for God’s relationship with the church, His bride. Those are immense theological and moral implications.

I noted this in my last post. I don't think that the text says that Adam and Eve were created not like animals.

I don't think the text addresses origins at all.


The image of God, in that very same passage it talks about mankind being created to subdue and rule creation. I view that as a function of mankind, things that we can do, but not something that relates to our origins.

Same with the subject of marriage, yes it's an important detail, but I don't think the question of whether or not we should marry male and female specifically relates to the questions of what our origins are.

 

[Job 33:6]

I noted this in my last post. I don't think that the text says that Adam and Eve were created not like animals.

I don't think the text addresses origins at all.


The image of God, in that very same passage it talks about mankind being created to subdue and rule creation. I view that as a function of mankind, things that we can do, but not something that relates to our origins.

Same with the subject of marriage, yes it's an important detail, but I don't think the question of whether or not we should marry male and female specifically relates to the questions of what our origins are.

Let me specify though, when I say that the text doesn't specify that we are created separate or differently than animals, what I mean is from a biological sense.

So for example, the image of God is specific to mankind and it does identify something that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom, but the image of God doesn't specifically relate to biological origins, or our biology at all. I don't think that that Imago dei has anything to do with anything biology related.

So I would agree that we were created differently than the animal Kingdom, but that difference is not with relation to biological origins.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why did God take time to specifically dictate chapter 2 of Genesis? The chapter is important. In that chapter He specifically says that Adam and Eve were created not like animals. They were created special (set apart, holy), in God’s image and likeness (good, intelligent, creative, etc), alive by the breath (aka spirit) of God. And marriage was created as a symbol for God’s relationship with the church, His bride. Those are immense theological and moral implications.

Also, when I read chapter 2 of Genesis, I noticed that God assigns Adam and Eve the practices of working and keeping the garden. And these terms are the same used in Leviticus for those priests that upkept the tabernacle and temples in the OT.

Genesis is about God's holy Temple, and Adam and Eve are assigned the objectives as his priests. And so the text is more theological about assigning these representatives as priests of God.

But I wouldn't view any of this as biology.

Adam of course is made from dust, but then again, all of mankind is made from dust in the Bible, Abraham says that he himself is dust, Job and the psalmist say that they are dust, Ecclesiastes, and passages in Psalms and ecclesiastes note that all of mankind is of dust.

And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7

For he knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.
Psalms 103:14

You hide your face, they are terrified. You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
Psalms 104:29

By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until your return to the ground. For from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Genesis 3:19

Remember that you fashioned me like clay; and will you turn me to dust again?
Job 10:9

Then Abraham answered and said, “Look, please, I was bold to speak to my Lord, but I am dust and ashes.
Genesis 18:27

Your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west, and to the east, and to the north and to the south. And all the families of the earth will be blessed through you and through your descendants.
Genesis 28:14

So I don't think that Adam being made of dust has anything to do with biology.

And with respect to Eve, it says that she's made of the side of Adam, but we also noticed that Adam entered a deep sleep right before Eve was created, and in the Old Testament, deep sleep was associated with prophetic vision, so you might think about Abraham later on in Genesis, he enters a deep sleep and then he has visions from God. You could think about Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar enters a deep sleep and then he has his visions.

This is a common thing in the Old Testament where individuals enter a deep sleep and then they have visions of things.

And when we look at the creation of Eve from Adam's side, immediately proceeding her creation, we see that Adam enters a prophetic visionary deep sleep.

And also the side, the tsela, this term here is used with respect to the tabernacle quite often, the north and south side of the Tabernacle, or the west and east side of the Tabernacle. So I would say it's better to interpret this as Eve being made not of a rib bone, but of a side in the sense that she is the north side to his south or she is the west side to his East. Adam is perceiving her as literally like a half of his body.

And so Adam says wow, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.

She's not just a rib bone, she is his mirror image.

But all this aside, I don't think any of this has to do with biology either.

 

[olgamc]

From "Darwin's Religious Beliefs"

Darwin’s Religious Beliefs | Faraday

www.faraday.cam.ac.uk

"Darwin also wrote to another correspondent in 1879, “Science has nothing to do with Christ.” Perhaps it is because he said the following year, “I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” Perhaps it is because he said in his autobiography that, given that “the plain language of the text seems to [point towards]…everlasting punishment…I can…hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true.”

Thus it is with his acolytes ever since.

THIS is the spirit a professing Christian wants to align themselves with? For the sake of embracing a little leaven of scientific truth?

That's just it, we don't have to align ourselves with that spirit. But here's what I think, and it's just my personal opinion. Devil influenced Darwin and others to believe that truth can be discovered only through science, so he threw away theology. My opinion is that devil influences us to believe that truth can only be discovered through theology, so we throw away science. I believe that the source of truth is God, and He reveals truth to us through both science and theology. I also believe that to be saved we don't need to be scientists or theologians, we just need to believe in Christ and accept His gift of salvation, and even that faith is a gift from God.

Why I believe that we can and should study both science and theology to discover the truth? I'll illustrate. If you take a piece of paper and draw a circle on it - that circle is creation. If you put that piece of paper under a light - light is God. God is in a different dimension from creation. Light shining down to the circle - that's God's relationship with His creation. It is things that Bible talks about that science cannot study because they are not physical. Studying that vertical dimension is theology. Theology is not a study of the horizontal dimension. But see how the light illuminates the whole circle, horizontally? That's God revealing Himself through creation. Studying the horizontal dimension is science. Science does not study the vertical dimension. Bible tells us that God revealed Himself through the Word as well as through creation. So to grow in the knowledge of God we should study both, then we can get a 3d perspective. Darwin's mistake was to take science, a study of horizontal, and make a vertical conclusion - there is no God. Our mistake is to take the Bible, which is a book about vertical, and apply it to horizontal - no aspect of evolution theory can be true. We can't do that.

In my opinion, if we do science properly, it should point us to God. That's what Romans 1:18-20 is all about. The two don't have to be in conflict. They can both point us to God because God says that that's how He revealed Himself to us. And the Spirit can be our guide, confirming things for us. And the fruit shows us if we are on the right track. Are we angry, arrogant, judgmental - than we've gone wrong somewhere. Are we patient, gentle, makers of peace - than we are on the right track. Both groups have gone off, because both are at each other's throats. Both are saying I am right and you are wrong. That's the spirit that I can't align myself with.

 

[olgamc]

Also, when I read chapter 2 of Genesis, I noticed that God assigns Adam and Eve the practices of working and keeping the garden. And these terms are the same used in Leviticus for those priests that upkept the tabernacle and temples in the OT.

Genesis is about God's holy Temple, and Adam and Eve are assigned the objectives as his priests. And so the text is more theological about assigning these representatives as priests of God.

But I wouldn't view any of this as biology.

Adam of course is made from dust, but then again, all of mankind is made from dust in the Bible, Abraham says that he himself is dust, Job and the psalmist say that they are dust, Ecclesiastes, and passages in Psalms and ecclesiastes note that all of mankind is of dust.

And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7

For he knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.
Psalms 103:14

You hide your face, they are terrified. You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
Psalms 104:29

By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until your return to the ground. For from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Genesis 3:19

Remember that you fashioned me like clay; and will you turn me to dust again?
Job 10:9

Then Abraham answered and said, “Look, please, I was bold to speak to my Lord, but I am dust and ashes.
Genesis 18:27

Your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west, and to the east, and to the north and to the south. And all the families of the earth will be blessed through you and through your descendants.
Genesis 28:14

So I don't think that Adam being made of dust has anything to do with biology.

And with respect to Eve, it says that she's made of the side of Adam, but we also noticed that Adam entered a deep sleep right before Eve was created, and in the Old Testament, deep sleep was associated with prophetic vision, so you might think about Abraham later on in Genesis, he enters a deep sleep and then he has visions from God. You could think about Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar enters a deep sleep and then he has his visions.

This is a common thing in the Old Testament where individuals enter a deep sleep and then they have visions of things.

And when we look at the creation of Eve from Adam's side, immediately proceeding her creation, we see that Adam enters a prophetic visionary deep sleep.

And also the side, the tsela, this term here is used with respect to the tabernacle quite often, the north and south side of the Tabernacle, or the west and east side of the Tabernacle. So I would say it's better to interpret this as Eve being made not of a rib bone, but of a side in the sense that she is the north side to his south or she is the west side to his East. Adam is perceiving her as literally like a half of his body.

And so Adam says wow, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.

She's not just a rib bone, she is his mirror image.

But all this aside, I don't think any of this has to do with biology either.

Maybe. But do you agree that Adam and Eve were literal physical people? I do because of genealogies. And do you believe that sin entered the world through one man Adam? I do because of Romans 5:12. So if sin entered the world through one biological man Adam, and Adam was not created literally from dust but had a mom and a dad, that would mean that his mom and dad were not sinners. Or not humans?

Another thought. Assuming for a moment that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans (homo with a soul), but not the first biological humans (homo), that would mean that there were many other humans in the world at that time, right? But Genesis 6 starts with "Then the people began to multiply on the earth". So presumably this is talking about homo with a soul, because homo without a soul has already been multiplying for goodness knows how long. So that means that homo without a soul is not a person, he is an animal.

Ok, so let's divorce theology from science, and look at strictly the scientific and moral implications of this conclusion. Not all biological people are people. Or even worse - we are all just animals. I don't know about you, but for me this is troubling. Ok, let's put theology back. When does a biological body get it's soul? What if we made a baby through artificial insemination? What if we made a baby in a test tube? What if we cloned a baby? Can we be sure that all of those babies are still human, or are we going to start believing that some of them are not? I don't know man, I personally don't want to go that way. I choose to believe that a person is always a person with a soul, that a soul is immortal because God's breath is immortal, and together body and soul is the man or woman. When we die our spirit goes to God until the day that He gives us a new body.

I also choose to believe that God, who had created all of the physical creation up to that point, could have just taken a bunch of non-organic elements and arranged them into an organic structure with cells with dna and all the "machinery" and "programming" that is close to another mammal. Ape or pig or rat or whatever they do experiments on because of our apparent genetic similarity. And yeah, maybe it offends somebody to be closely related in genetic makeup to an ape. But it doesn't offend me, because I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God sees me as having a very high value. In fact, I don't value myself as much as God apparently values me, and that just blows my mind, how much my Lord loves me. But notice I didn't say "did", I said "could have". I guess we might one day find out?

 

[olgamc]

Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

No. But I can learn. Let me try.

Definitions:
data is facts
information is organization or interpretation of facts

let p1 = there exists a set of x such that x creates data and x does not create information. (all kinds of random forces)
let p2 = there exists a set of y such that y creates information from data. (all kinds of machines that are able to derive meaning from data)
let p3 = if both p1 and p2 are true, there exists at least one x that creates data for at least one y. (random force generating meaningful data)

is p3 true?

How was that? My first stab. Well more like my 50th, including all the edits.

 

[Joseph G]

That's just it, we don't have to align ourselves with that spirit.

Agreed. And we do so by removing their idols from our homes. Even Christians are warned against such compromise:

1 John 5:21 NIV

"Dear children, keep yourselves from idols."

But here's what I think, and it's just my personal opinion. Devil influenced Darwin and others to believe that truth can be discovered only through science, so he threw away theology.

Yep. Not only for that reason, but because he was driven to disprove a Creator God so as to remain unaccountable to a Moral God. And teaches his followers to share in his enmity. Their inner motive:

John 3:19-20 NIV

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."

My opinion is that devil influences us to believe that truth can only be discovered through theology, so we throw away science.

Again you are failing to distinguish between good science and bad science. And why do you insist on perpetuating the bias that just because the Christian elevates Holy Scripture as his final authority that he isn't weighing good science with theology - or that he is unaware of God's witness in creation? You obviously aren't carefully reading our posts or your disdain is clouding your judgement.

As for conjecturing that the devil would inspire us to elevate Holy Scripture - talk about dangerous theology...

I believe that the source of truth is God, and He reveals truth to us through both science and theology. I also believe that to be saved we don't need to be scientists or theologians, we just need to believe in Christ and accept His gift of salvation, and even that faith is a gift from God.

Yep. Show me a quote where a believer is claiming otherwise?

Why I believe that we can and should study both science and theology to discover the truth? I'll illustrate. If you take a piece of paper and draw a circle on it - that circle is creation. If you put that piece of paper under a light - light is God. God is in a different dimension from creation. Light shining down to the circle - that's God's relationship with His creation. It is things that Bible talks about that science cannot study because they are not physical. Studying that vertical dimension is theology. Theology is not a study of the horizontal dimension. But see how the light illuminates the whole circle, horizontally? That's God revealing Himself through creation. Studying the horizontal dimension is science. Science does not study the vertical dimension. Bible tells us that God revealed Himself through the Word as well as through creation. So to grow in the knowledge of God we should study both, then we can get a 3d perspective

Every believer I've ever encountered DELIGHTS in evidences of God in creation. Did you read my ponderings on God through observing my infant son earlier in this thread? Do you read other believer's posts?

Just because we don't bow down to the element of evolutionary theory that is pure fantasy doesn't mean that we despise ALL science.

. Darwin's mistake was to take science, a study of horizontal, and make a vertical conclusion - there is no God. Our mistake is to take the Bible, which is a book about vertical, and apply it to horizontal - no aspect of evolution theory can be true. We can't do that.

I conceded aspects of micro-evolution - including your example of the fruit fly. Did you not notice? But I won't concede the other 90% of sheer speculation just to satisfy your appeal to make peace with those actively opposed to God.

In my opinion, if we do science properly, it should point us to God. That's what Romans 1:18-20 is all about. The two don't have to be in conflict.

Scripture and GOOD science - ie: provable and repeatable - are not in conflict.

They can both point us to God because God says that that's how He revealed Himself to us.

Darwinian evolutionary theory does not point one to God - but away - as amply demonstrated.

And the Spirit can be our guide, confirming things for us. And the fruit shows us if we are on the right track. Are we angry, arrogant, judgmental - than we've gone wrong somewhere. Are we patient, gentle, makers of peace - than we are on the right track.

Are you making peace with the believer who elevates Scripture as inspired and inerrant? Do you believe that Scripture is inspired and inerrant?

I pursue peace through sharing the full gospel, the good news and the bad - that is what Jesus did and is the definition of loving our enemies. Coddling their delusions is not loving them.

Both groups have gone off, because both are at each other's throats. Both are saying I am right and you are wrong. That's the spirit that I can't align myself with.

John 14:6

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

That is the Spirit we should be aligning with. One group is aligned with Him, the other is aligned with His/our enemy. We are called to love our enemy and share the Gospel with them, but remain separate in our allegiance in who we are ultimately devoted to - God or Self:

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 NIV

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever. What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”

Therefore,

“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”

And,

“I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”

 

[tonychanyt]

No. But I can learn. Let me try.

Definitions:
data is facts
information is organization or interpretation of facts

let p1 = there exists a set of x such that x creates data and x does not create information. (all kinds of random forces)
let p2 = there exists a set of y such that y creates information from data. (all kinds of machines that are able to derive meaning from data)
let p3 = if both p1 and p2 are true, there exists at least one x that creates data for at least one y. (random force generating meaningful data)

is p3 true?

How was that? My first stab. Well more like my 50th, including all the edits.

For an example of proof by contradiction, see There is a resurrection of the dead: Jesus' Proof by contradiction

 

[Dan1988]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that none of us Christians should be reading or studying any other books (or other sources) other than the Bible?

While I understand the general notion that we're to avoid adding to or subtracting from the Bible, how do you deal with the fact that the Bible doesn't explain itself in comprehensive terms or make "itself" absolutely clear on every point that seems central, especially on those points that pertain to the Origins and Development of Life, or the End of All Things?

Christians should read other books, if they want to learn about such things like how to cook a tasty Indian curry dish. There are books on all kinds on all kinds of weird and wonderful things, but there's no substitute for the Bible as it is Gods living Word.

The Bible makes itself crystal clear on everything it teaches us. it's clear that the human mind is very puny and very limited so God didn't bother explaining the method He used to simply speak everything into existence. Humans don't have the mental capacity to grasp the supernatural things about God, it would blow our puny minds so we can thank God He didn't burden us with that stuff.

God only revealed those small things which we can process, about Himself and how He does things. We lost around 99% of our intellectual capacity when mankind fell in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were created highly intelligent, but the human race became retarded and dumb after the fall and we're only getting dumber as time goes on.

Today humans don't have a clue about ancient technology, we can't figure out why the ancient civilizations had so much advanced technology while todays scientists are severely retarded in comparison. The answer is, fallen man continues to degenerate and fall deeper and deeper into depravity.

When mankind fell into Satan's trap, we became His slaves and He has been feeding us lies and deception for the past 6,000 years so each generation has gotten dumber and dumber. Todays generation is the dumbest of all, most children have today has some kind of learning disorder. Most are mentally retarred, the world has never seen this before and the Bible warned us that this would happen exactly as we see it.

Today people want God to tell them how He formed the eye or ear but they can't even gasp the basics of biology or chemistry or anything at all to do with Gods science. God is the only true scientist, humans scientists are all arguing among each other because nobody knows the truth about anything

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians should read other books, if they want to learn about such things like how to cook a tasty Indian curry dish. There are books on all kinds on all kinds of weird and wonderful things, but there's no substitute for the Bible as it is Gods living Word.

The Bible makes itself crystal clear on everything it teaches us. it's clear that the human mind is very puny and very limited so God didn't bother explaining the method He used to simply speak everything into existence. Humans don't have the mental capacity to grasp the supernatural things about God, it would blow our puny minds so we can thank God He didn't burden us with that stuff.

God only revealed those small things which we can process, about Himself and how He does things. We lost around 99% of our intellectual capacity when mankind fell in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were created highly intelligent, but the human race became retarded and dumb after the fall and we're only getting dumber as time goes on.

Today humans don't have a clue about ancient technology, we can't figure out why the ancient civilizations had so much advanced technology while todays scientists are severely retarded in comparison. The answer is, fallen man continues to degenerate and fall deeper and deeper into depravity.

When mankind fell into Satan's trap, we became His slaves and He has been feeding us lies and deception for the past 6,000 years so each generation has gotten dumber and dumber. Todays generation is the dumbest of all, most children have today has some kind of learning disorder. Most are mentally retarred, the world has never seen this before and the Bible warned us that this would happen exactly as we see it.

Today people want God to tell them how He formed the eye or ear but they can't even gasp the basics of biology or chemistry or anything at all to do with Gods science. God is the only true scientist, humans scientists are all arguing among each other because nobody knows the truth about anything

... ok, Dan. Enjoy your time on CF. I hope you're having fun.

 

[Dan1988]

Precisely. So let us not read the Bible with the attitude that we understand everything.

Like you said yourself, you are both very old and very young. And I would argue that both of us are still being created as we are being made into God’s likeness. So on one hand, at some point in time, God said “let us make Dan1988 and olgamc” and it was so. On the other hand, neither you or I are yet fully complete. Even our physical bodies are still developing, as our brains are making new connections and pruning the ones we no longer need.

So why not just accept that the world is a different age in God’s time as it is in human time? Creation is written by God, not by a human. In God’s time God said and it was so. But scientists study human time, and in human time things take time. So both the Biblical account and scientific findings can be right, and there is no conflict. Even if we believe that the process of creation was instant in human time, Adam’s body was about 20 years old when his body was 1 day old. Why can’t earth’s body be billions years old when it is 6,000 years old? They can both be true, and we don’t need to argue.

Also regarding the idea that during creation week everything happened instantly. So God created all of the plants on day 3, right? In their fully mature adult form? So what is a fully mature adult form for wheat? Would you agree that it’s a fully grown stalk with mature seeds? Or a blueberry bush. A fully grown bush with ripe blueberries, right? Ok, now look at Genesis 2:5-7. It’s day 6, and at least some of the plants haven’t even sprouted yet, let alone fully grown.

So this idea that everything was created instantly in its fully mature form, is that in the Bible, or have we added to the Bible?

Another thought. God could instantly by his word put the man to sleep, take out his rib, close the place with flesh, and fashion the rib into a woman. But He couldn’t instantly by His word change the dna of an ameba? Of course He could, He is God, He can do anything, and He doesn’t need hands or tools like we humans. But let’s not confuse could and did. Christians argue against evolution with the argument that He did create instantly and He could not have used a process. Who are we to be talking about what God did and what He can and cannot do. We get mad at the world for taking a theory (could have happened) and turning it into fact (did happen). But we do the exact same thing! We take a theory (creation could have been instant) and turn it into fact (was instant). We have a log in our eye that we are not noticing.

You're still trying to marry two opposing world views together, but the two will never be united in harmony. Mans view and understanding are deficient and corrupt. Man simply doesn't have the capacity to make sense of reality, all of his attempts to find reasonable explanations for the created order have failed.
Humans still don't know the very basics or fundamental facts, but we try to write papers to explain the high order programming of life. Please see the attached scientific presentation about biological evolution.

 

[olgamc]

And we do so by removing their idols from our homes.

I am not sure what you mean here. An idol is something you worship that is not God. I do not worship Darwin or his theory.

he was driven to disprove a Creator God so as to remain unaccountable to a Moral God

Maybe. I don't think he did, from what I've read, but ok, maybe he did. If he did, he sure failed with me. This reminds me of my grade 6 biology class. It was at the end of the school year and the teacher was an avid atheist. Oh, and for context, I grew up in the Soviet Union. Anyways, at the end of this class, the teacher said "is there anyone in this class who, after learning everything that we have learnt about biology this year, after learning the theory of evolution, is there anyone in this class who still believes in God?" I thought to myself "I do." I failed to raise my hand. God forgave me and gave me lots of other opportunities to say "I know about evolution, and I believe in God". I believe in God the Creator, and I believe that He is omnipotent. I believe that He could have created everything instantly and that He could have taken time. I do not know if He created everything instantly or took time. I just don't know. But I believe that He could have done it either way, because nothing is impossible for Him.

Again you are failing to distinguish between good science and bad science. And why do you insist on perpetuating the bias that just because the Christian elevates Holy Scripture as his final authority that he isn't weighing good science with theology - or that he is unaware of God's witness in creation? You obviously aren't carefully reading our posts or your disdain is clouding your judgement.

Of course I am reading your posts Joseph G. I was touched by your description of your son - you love him very much, he is lucky to have you as a dad. I am not addressing Christians who are able to accept science. You are able to accept concepts that are reproducible in a lab. Good! I am not addressing you. I am addressing people who refuse facts because they are not in the Bible, or because they have a word "evolution" in them, and I am addressing people who say that you can't believe in any aspect of evolution and be saved. Yes, you can. You can also be scientifically wrong, and still be saved.

As for conjecturing that the devil would inspire us to elevate Holy Scripture - talk about dangerous theology...

Scripture is the authority, I never said it wasn't. I did not say the devil makes us elevate scripture. I said the devil makes us shut out the other way that God reveals Himself - through creation. Scripture alone is better than science alone. If someone is going to choose one and throw out the other, a 100% choose Scripture.

Show me a quote where a believer is claiming otherwise?

Look at page 1. The question was can you be a Christian and believe in evolution. There are several posts that say no.

Just because we don't bow down to the element of evolutionary theory that is pure fantasy doesn't mean that we despise ALL science.

Again you are accusing me of idol worship. I do not bow down to the theory.

I conceded aspects of micro-evolution - including your example of the fruit fly. Did you not notice? But I won't concede the other 90% of sheer speculation just to satisfy your appeal to make peace with those actively opposed to God.

Ok. Did I say that you had to?

Scripture and GOOD science - ie: provable and repeatable - are not in conflict.

Exactly. But how do you get to a provable repeatable fact? By starting with a hypothesis. Which you seem to call bad science. Or do I misunderstand you?

Darwinian evolutionary theory does not point one to God - but away - as amply demonstrated.

Actually, it does. Without it you wouldn't be able to justify 6th day as being 24 hours.

Are you making peace with the believer who elevates Scripture as inspired and inerrant? Do you believe that Scripture is inspired and inerrant?

I try and yes I do, and I myself elevate the Scripture as inspired and inerrant. What I don't elevate as inspired and inerrant is a human understanding of scripture. I challenge people who claim to know the truth, but the "truth" they "know" is not written in the Scripture.

I pursue peace through sharing the full gospel, the good news and the bad - that is what Jesus did and is the definition of loving our enemies. Coddling their delusions is not loving them.

But this is a Christians only part of the forum, is it not? I am not coddling with enemies here. If an atheist came in, I would tell them exact same thing I've been saying to everyone here - God is the creator, the theory of evolution is partially true (the parts that have been proven), partially flawed (the parts that contradict the scripture), and partially remain a theory/a maybe/a could have vs did or didn't.

One group is aligned with Him, the other is aligned with His/our enemy. We are called to love our enemy and share the Gospel with them, but remain separate in our allegiance in who we are ultimately devoted to - God or Self:

The first group is not always aligned with Him. Those who are proud, arrogant, claim to know it all when they don't, etc are aligning with the enemy, regardless of which group they are in. Again, I am not talking about you.

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers

Do not yoke in ideology, correct. And I don't, and I am not telling people to. I am sorry if I somehow communicated anything to the contrary. You are saved, you have the Spirit, and the Spirit gave you peace about 24 literal days. Ok! I am not saying that you need to believe anything else. If you believe that theory of evolution is akin to worshipping idols, than please, don't mess with it, stay away from it!

 

[tonychanyt]

Either the Bible is inspired in total - or not at all.

Right. See All Scripture is GOD-BREATHED

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe. But do you agree that Adam and Eve were literal physical people? I do because of genealogies. And do you believe that sin entered the world through one man Adam? I do because of Romans 5:12. So if sin entered the world through one biological man Adam, and Adam was not created literally from dust but had a mom and a dad, that would mean that his mom and dad were not sinners. Or not humans?

Another thought. Assuming for a moment that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans (homo with a soul), but not the first biological humans (homo), that would mean that there were many other humans in the world at that time, right? But Genesis 6 starts with "Then the people began to multiply on the earth". So presumably this is talking about homo with a soul, because homo without a soul has already been multiplying for goodness knows how long. So that means that homo without a soul is not a person, he is an animal.

Ok, so let's divorce theology from science, and look at strictly the scientific and moral implications of this conclusion. Not all biological people are people. Or even worse - we are all just animals. I don't know about you, but for me this is troubling. Ok, let's put theology back. When does a biological body get it's soul? What if we made a baby through artificial insemination? What if we made a baby in a test tube? What if we cloned a baby? Can we be sure that all of those babies are still human, or are we going to start believing that some of them are not? I don't know man, I personally don't want to go that way. I choose to believe that a person is always a person with a soul, that a soul is immortal because God's breath is immortal, and together body and soul is the man or woman. When we die our spirit goes to God until the day that He gives us a new body.

I also choose to believe that God, who had created all of the physical creation up to that point, could have just taken a bunch of non-organic elements and arranged them into an organic structure with cells with dna and all the "machinery" and "programming" that is close to another mammal. Ape or pig or rat or whatever they do experiments on because of our apparent genetic similarity. And yeah, maybe it offends somebody to be closely related in genetic makeup to an ape. But it doesn't offend me, because I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God sees me as having a very high value. In fact, I don't value myself as much as God apparently values me, and that just blows my mind, how much my Lord loves me. But notice I didn't say "did", I said "could have". I guess we might one day find out?

Sin is not counted where mankind is not held accountable. Prior to Adam, mankind did not receive instruction from God. They had no way of rebelling against Him. It's like asking if an ant sins when it eats another insect. It's not really a sin because there isn't an instruction of accountability.

That's how I would respond to your first question. I'll just go one at a time.

 

[olgamc]

reference? Note the bold.

For an example of proof by contradiction, see There is a resurrection of the dead: Jesus' Proof by contradiction

Ok, read the proof by contradiction, and you are right, I forgot how it works. But it’s a diversion to begin with. Because I don’t need to prove that according to the atheistic evolution there is no creator. If there is no creator, then genetic information has been created unintentionally. No design, no planning, just random interactions of the elements.

So back to my question. Your p1 is that data cannot create data. Ok. I still don’t understand why you made that point, but ok. But information can be created from a certain quality of data by some process. Like a neural network that can find patterns if there’s patterns to be found. So here’s my question. Can information be created by a random process? Or more specifically, can a random process create data with such qualities that information can be created from it?

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe. But do you agree that Adam and Eve were literal physical people? I do because of genealogies. And do you believe that sin entered the world through one man Adam? I do because of Romans 5:12. So if sin entered the world through one biological man Adam, and Adam was not created literally from dust but had a mom and a dad, that would mean that his mom and dad were not sinners. Or not humans?

Another thought. Assuming for a moment that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans (homo with a soul), but not the first biological humans (homo), that would mean that there were many other humans in the world at that time, right? But Genesis 6 starts with "Then the people began to multiply on the earth". So presumably this is talking about homo with a soul, because homo without a soul has already been multiplying for goodness knows how long. So that means that homo without a soul is not a person, he is an animal.

Ok, so let's divorce theology from science, and look at strictly the scientific and moral implications of this conclusion. Not all biological people are people. Or even worse - we are all just animals. I don't know about you, but for me this is troubling. Ok, let's put theology back. When does a biological body get it's soul? What if we made a baby through artificial insemination? What if we made a baby in a test tube? What if we cloned a baby? Can we be sure that all of those babies are still human, or are we going to start believing that some of them are not? I don't know man, I personally don't want to go that way. I choose to believe that a person is always a person with a soul, that a soul is immortal because God's breath is immortal, and together body and soul is the man or woman. When we die our spirit goes to God until the day that He gives us a new body.

I also choose to believe that God, who had created all of the physical creation up to that point, could have just taken a bunch of non-organic elements and arranged them into an organic structure with cells with dna and all the "machinery" and "programming" that is close to another mammal. Ape or pig or rat or whatever they do experiments on because of our apparent genetic similarity. And yeah, maybe it offends somebody to be closely related in genetic makeup to an ape. But it doesn't offend me, because I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God sees me as having a very high value. In fact, I don't value myself as much as God apparently values me, and that just blows my mind, how much my Lord loves me. But notice I didn't say "did", I said "could have". I guess we might one day find out?

Regarding Genesis 6, I would say that, in old testament times, the "earth" or erets, was viewed as a local region. Not the actual globe.

So for example:

‭‭Genesis 11:1 NET‬‬
[1] The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary.
[4] Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.”
[9] That is why its name was called Babel – because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

We might ask the question of, how this would make sense. The whole world spoke one language. And then immediately right after, the entire world was scattered across the face of the entire earth.

So what we have is an observation of hyperbolic language. "The whole world" turns out to be a local community.


And then right before the tower of Babel:
‭‭Genesis 10:31-32 ESV‬‬
[31] These are the sons of Shem, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations. [32] These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.

So people spreading abroad on the earth actually means just local travels here.

Here's a popular example:
‭‭Genesis 41:56-57 ESV‬‬
[56] So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. [57] Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

So the famine spread over the land of Egypt, yet here, the famine was simultaneously severe over "all the earth".

So we have this instance where the immediate region around Egypt is equated to the whole earth.

Another example:
‭‭Genesis 2:11 ESV‬‬
[11] The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

The Hebrew words there for whole land are "kol erets", which, erets is the same word translated "earth".

So this river flowed around the "while earth". But translators say "land" to avoid confusing the reader.

But I hope this makes sense. The ancient audience didn't know that earth was a sphere. They had no concept of a globe. So when they said "kol erets", the whole earth, they were in reality, hyperbolically speaking of a local region.

But, also, when God creates "mankind" in His image, he doesn't only create Adam alone in His image. God creates all of "mankind" in His image. That's what Genesis chapter 1 says.

And so the passage is just saying "when people of this ancient near east region began to multiple in the local area", essentially. But all of mankind is created in God's image. So mankind isn't soul-less beyond the garden.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe. But do you agree that Adam and Eve were literal physical people? I do because of genealogies. And do you believe that sin entered the world through one man Adam? I do because of Romans 5:12. So if sin entered the world through one biological man Adam, and Adam was not created literally from dust but had a mom and a dad, that would mean that his mom and dad were not sinners. Or not humans?

Another thought. Assuming for a moment that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans (homo with a soul), but not the first biological humans (homo), that would mean that there were many other humans in the world at that time, right? But Genesis 6 starts with "Then the people began to multiply on the earth". So presumably this is talking about homo with a soul, because homo without a soul has already been multiplying for goodness knows how long. So that means that homo without a soul is not a person, he is an animal.

Ok, so let's divorce theology from science, and look at strictly the scientific and moral implications of this conclusion. Not all biological people are people. Or even worse - we are all just animals. I don't know about you, but for me this is troubling. Ok, let's put theology back. When does a biological body get it's soul? What if we made a baby through artificial insemination? What if we made a baby in a test tube? What if we cloned a baby? Can we be sure that all of those babies are still human, or are we going to start believing that some of them are not? I don't know man, I personally don't want to go that way. I choose to believe that a person is always a person with a soul, that a soul is immortal because God's breath is immortal, and together body and soul is the man or woman. When we die our spirit goes to God until the day that He gives us a new body.

I also choose to believe that God, who had created all of the physical creation up to that point, could have just taken a bunch of non-organic elements and arranged them into an organic structure with cells with dna and all the "machinery" and "programming" that is close to another mammal. Ape or pig or rat or whatever they do experiments on because of our apparent genetic similarity. And yeah, maybe it offends somebody to be closely related in genetic makeup to an ape. But it doesn't offend me, because I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God sees me as having a very high value. In fact, I don't value myself as much as God apparently values me, and that just blows my mind, how much my Lord loves me. But notice I didn't say "did", I said "could have". I guess we might one day find out?

All people are people. Not sure if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise.

The Bible doesn't say when the human body gets it's soul. That's been debated since the earliest of theological discussions and early church fathers did not agree. So I won't even begin to try to answer that. However, I would say at the latest, when insemination occurs. At the earliest, souls would be eternal.

What would an artificial inseminated baby not be human? I don't understand what you mean.

The Bible says that all of mankind is created in His image. It doesn't matter if you're born in a test tube or born with half a heart. Doesn't matter what your skin color is or if you have all your fingers.

Imago dei is a status. You're God's chosen people. It's not about whether you were born in a test tube or not.

You can think of it like having a job. God can give you a job regardless of what the origins of your birth is. Regardless of skin color or How big your muscles or anything like that.

Even a person in a coma who cannot use their brain, who may not even be conscious, would still be create an in God's image. Because it's not about anatomy.

I don't think it matters if we descended from prior apes or not. Fearfully and wonderfully made can be understood in many ways. I think have billions of years of ancestors sounds pretty wonderful to me.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe. But do you agree that Adam and Eve were literal physical people? I do because of genealogies. And do you believe that sin entered the world through one man Adam? I do because of Romans 5:12. So if sin entered the world through one biological man Adam, and Adam was not created literally from dust but had a mom and a dad, that would mean that his mom and dad were not sinners. Or not humans?

Another thought. Assuming for a moment that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans (homo with a soul), but not the first biological humans (homo), that would mean that there were many other humans in the world at that time, right? But Genesis 6 starts with "Then the people began to multiply on the earth". So presumably this is talking about homo with a soul, because homo without a soul has already been multiplying for goodness knows how long. So that means that homo without a soul is not a person, he is an animal.

Ok, so let's divorce theology from science, and look at strictly the scientific and moral implications of this conclusion. Not all biological people are people. Or even worse - we are all just animals. I don't know about you, but for me this is troubling. Ok, let's put theology back. When does a biological body get it's soul? What if we made a baby through artificial insemination? What if we made a baby in a test tube? What if we cloned a baby? Can we be sure that all of those babies are still human, or are we going to start believing that some of them are not? I don't know man, I personally don't want to go that way. I choose to believe that a person is always a person with a soul, that a soul is immortal because God's breath is immortal, and together body and soul is the man or woman. When we die our spirit goes to God until the day that He gives us a new body.

I also choose to believe that God, who had created all of the physical creation up to that point, could have just taken a bunch of non-organic elements and arranged them into an organic structure with cells with dna and all the "machinery" and "programming" that is close to another mammal. Ape or pig or rat or whatever they do experiments on because of our apparent genetic similarity. And yeah, maybe it offends somebody to be closely related in genetic makeup to an ape. But it doesn't offend me, because I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God sees me as having a very high value. In fact, I don't value myself as much as God apparently values me, and that just blows my mind, how much my Lord loves me. But notice I didn't say "did", I said "could have". I guess we might one day find out?

Lastly,

Genesis 2 happens after Genesis 1. It's not a retelling of the story. That's why the order of Genesis 1 and 2 are different.

And that means that the mankind referred to in Genesis 1 is not limited to just Adam and Eve

And this explains where Cain found his wife. And it explains why Cain was afraid someone would kill him upon exile.

 

[Joseph G]

I am not sure what you mean here. An idol is something you worship that is not God. I do not worship Darwin or his theory.

Maybe. I don't think he did, from what I've read, but ok, maybe he did. If he did, he sure failed with me. This reminds me of my grade 6 biology class. It was at the end of the school year and the teacher was an avid atheist. Oh, and for context, I grew up in the Soviet Union. Anyways, at the end of this class, the teacher said "is there anyone in this class who, after learning everything that we have learnt about biology this year, after learning the theory of evolution, is there anyone in this class who still believes in God?" I thought to myself "I do." I failed to raise my hand. God forgave me and gave me lots of other opportunities to say "I know about evolution, and I believe in God". I believe in God the Creator, and I believe that He is omnipotent. I believe that He could have created everything instantly and that He could have taken time. I do not know if He created everything instantly or took time. I just don't know. But I believe that He could have done it either way, because nothing is impossible for Him.

Of course I am reading your posts Joseph G. I was touched by your description of your son - you love him very much, he is lucky to have you as a dad. I am not addressing Christians who are able to accept science. You are able to accept concepts that are reproducible in a lab. Good! I am not addressing you. I am addressing people who refuse facts because they are not in the Bible, or because they have a word "evolution" in them, and I am addressing people who say that you can't believe in any aspect of evolution and be saved. Yes, you can. You can also be scientifically wrong, and still be saved.

Scripture is the authority, I never said it wasn't. I did not say the devil makes us elevate scripture. I said the devil makes us shut out the other way that God reveals Himself - through creation. Scripture alone is better than science alone. If someone is going to choose one and throw out the other, a 100% choose Scripture.

Look at page 1. The question was can you be a Christian and believe in evolution. There are several posts that say no.

Again you are accusing me of idol worship. I do not bow down to the theory.

Ok. Did I say that you had to?

Exactly. But how do you get to a provable repeatable fact? By starting with a hypothesis. Which you seem to call bad science. Or do I misunderstand you?

Actually, it does. Without it you wouldn't be able to justify 6th day as being 24 hours.

I try and yes I do, and I myself elevate the Scripture as inspired and inerrant. What I don't elevate as inspired and inerrant is a human understanding of scripture. I challenge people who claim to know the truth, but the "truth" they "know" is not written in the Scripture.

But this is a Christians only part of the forum, is it not? I am not coddling with enemies here. If an atheist came in, I would tell them exact same thing I've been saying to everyone here - God is the creator, the theory of evolution is partially true (the parts that have been proven), partially flawed (the parts that contradict the scripture), and partially remain a theory/a maybe/a could have vs did or didn't.

The first group is not always aligned with Him. Those who are proud, arrogant, claim to know it all when they don't, etc are aligning with the enemy, regardless of which group they are in. Again, I am not talking about you.

Do not yoke in ideology, correct. And I don't, and I am not telling people to. I am sorry if I somehow communicated anything to the contrary. You are saved, you have the Spirit, and the Spirit gave you peace about 24 literal days. Ok! I am not saying that you need to believe anything else. If you believe that theory of evolution is akin to worshipping idols, than please, don't mess with it, stay away from it!

I appreciate the graciousness of your response. Forgive me that I've failed to be as gracious.

Perhaps my lingering perplexity is a concern for how we, as Christians juggling Scripture and Science, are perceived. Or better, how our MESSAGE to each other and the lost is perceived.

To that end, you drove to the heart of the matter thusly:

"I am addressing people who refuse facts because they are not in the Bible, or because they have a word "evolution" in them..."

It is back to the problem of how the word 'evolution' is defined - as according to those: 1) dogmatic about "Scripture good, all evolution (or even all science) bad" (yes, I reviewed the posts and you are right, they exist) - or - 2) "Scripture good, some evolution good/some still developing theory" - or - 3) "Scripture good unless disproven by evolution" - or - 4) "Scripture laughably myth and legend, all evolution stone cold fact" - or - 5) some variant of each group or bouncing back and forth between groups.

Considering the confusion over what any one group is meaning when they refer to 'evolution', here is my concern...

In addition to the question raised in the OP, I would add what does the Christian who believes in 'evolution' DO with it?

As Christians, our primary mission is to share the Good News to the world. We do so, in part, by appealing to Who Jesus is - from Holy Scripture - and what He has done for us personally, right?

So, we approach with one hand holding Scripture and the other holding 'evolution'. WE know how we define Scripture and evolution for ourselves, but how do we control how our definition is perceived by THEM? How do they conclude which of the above groups we really belong to?

I would contend again that the automatic assumption of 99% of the world - here on this forum, on the secular forums, and in the real world, defines 'evolution' as: no Creator, all existence from nothing, no distinction between man and animal, no hope for life beyond the grave.

So my question is, why would the believer whose Savior is precious to them, and whose love for the fate of the lost and each other is profound, run the risk of their message being compromised by misperception on the part of the hearer? Because the hearer is intelligent enough to know that the 'evolution' they hold in one hand (from their perspective) is diametrically opposed to the Scripture that they declare in the other. The hearer would have to conclude that no matter how passionate or persuasive they are attempting to be, that deep down they are really confused or believe that Scripture is actually myth. And so they fail at their mission. Better to leave 'evolution' at home unless we are willing to define it each time we couple it with Gospel.

 

[Job 33:6]

Regarding Genesis 6, I would say that, in old testament times, the "earth" or erets, was viewed as a local region. Not the actual globe.

So for example:

‭‭Genesis 11:1 NET‬‬
[1] The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary.
[4] Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.”
[9] That is why its name was called Babel – because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

We might ask the question of, how this would make sense. The whole world spoke one language. And then immediately right after, the entire world was scattered across the face of the entire earth.

So what we have is an observation of hyperbolic language. "The whole world" turns out to be a local community.


And then right before the tower of Babel:
‭‭Genesis 10:31-32 ESV‬‬
[31] These are the sons of Shem, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations. [32] These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.

So people spreading abroad on the earth actually means just local travels here.

Here's a popular example:
‭‭Genesis 41:56-57 ESV‬‬
[56] So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. [57] Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

So the famine spread over the land of Egypt, yet here, the famine was simultaneously severe over "all the earth".

So we have this instance where the immediate region around Egypt is equated to the whole earth.

Another example:
‭‭Genesis 2:11 ESV‬‬
[11] The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

The Hebrew words there for whole land are "kol erets", which, erets is the same word translated "earth".

So this river flowed around the "while earth". But translators say "land" to avoid confusing the reader.

But I hope this makes sense. The ancient audience didn't know that earth was a sphere. They had no concept of a globe. So when they said "kol erets", the whole earth, they were in reality, hyperbolically speaking of a local region.

But, also, when God creates "mankind" in His image, he doesn't only create Adam alone in His image. God creates all of "mankind" in His image. That's what Genesis chapter 1 says.

And so the passage is just saying "when people of this ancient near east region began to multiple in the local area", essentially. But all of mankind is created in God's image. So mankind isn't soul-less beyond the garden.

Other examples of hyperbolic language with "kol erets", 1 samuel 14:25. All the world entered the forest. Usually translated as all the people of the land.

Isaiah 14:7. The whole earth is quiet and at rest.

‭‭Genesis 13:9 ESV‬‬
[9] Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.”

That's kol erets, but translators realize that the entire planet Earth couldn't be visible from standing in one location, so they translate it as land.

1 Samuel 13:3, blew a trumpet throughout all the world.

But again it's talking about a local region so it's typically just translated as land.


There are lots of passages like this. So when you read "earth", Just remember that the authors didn't think of the Earth as a sphere, so you have to think of it as a local region. @olgamc

‭‭1 Kings 10:24 ESV‬‬
[24] And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind.

No, Japanese people were not riding boats to the middle east to see King Solomon. It's hyperbole of a local region.