Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

There's a difference between inerrancy of scripture, and viewing scripture like it's a history or science textbook. Viewing scripture as inerrant does not depend on making it out to be scientifically or historically accurate. At least not in Genesis chapter 1.

Ok, so which part of genesis 1 is inerrant? Mankind is created in God’s image - true? Animals are not created in God’s image - true? Ok, now I will leave you to think about George and Lucy.

 

[Job 33:6]

And where did ane myths come from?

They come from the imaginations of people. Kind of like marvel super hero movies. People imagine things and write legends about them.

Leviathan is a mythical creature from Jewish tradition that represents the enemy of Israel. I have two questions for you.
1. Where do myths come from?
2. Who is the ultimate enemy of God’s people?

Nope. It's more broad than the enemy of Isreal. In fact, leviathan was present in texts before Isreal even existed.

Oh? So no history in the Bible? What is the Bible then exactly?

I didn't say there wasn't some history in the Bible. But much of it isn't.

What language did Jesus speak? Who created languages?

People make languages.

Think about the king James version. The English spoken just a couple hundred years ago is different from our own. Languages change over time and are made by people to communicate ideas.

Like I said, leviathan could have been a direct revelation or it could have been a cultural reference. I don’t know why you are bringing up leviathan. Psalm 74 is not talking about creation. It is talking about the almighty power of God. How does it prove that people evolved?

Psalm 74 is talking about creation.

‭Psalm 74:14-17 ESV‬
[14] You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. [15] You split open springs and brooks; you dried up ever-flowing streams. [16] Yours is the day, yours also the night; you have established the heavenly lights and the sun. [17] You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth; you have made summer and winter.

He established day and night, the heavenly lights and the sun. He fixed the boundaries of the earth, He created summer and winter.

It's normal to see this kind of language in association with the defeat of leviathan in ANE texts. Because creation of the cosmos was done at the defeat of this creature.

The point is that, this is reference to broader cultural ANE concepts. God isn't teaching Moses a historical scientifically accurate narrative about how He defeated a multi headed fire breathing sea dragon while he created the universe. If you think that this is somehow scientific or historical, I would just pray that you reconsider your understanding of scripture.

“He is king over all the sons of pride”. That’s literally Satan.

No. It's just leviathan. These are two different concepts from different periods of time. In fact, satan is in the book of Job as well, right along side leviathan (two separate concepts). But you'll notice that it's not the Satan that you are thinking of.

‭Job 1:6-7 ESV‬
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. [7] The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

If leviathan were Satan, they wouldn't be described as completely different beings in this same book.

But also you might wonder why, after the fall, Satan is mysteriously present in the divine council of God. Shouldnt he be in hell somewhere? Why is he in heaven having a casual conversation with God? The answer is, the context is different. It's not the Satan of the new testament. Satan wasn't even a thing in the old testament. Rather it was "the satan" the antagonist. A title that was sometimes assigned to the angel of God.

But the point is that, it's ok for Moses or whomever to pull things into the Bible from their cultural context. There are naturally things in the Bible that are referenced from culture that aren't prophetic revelation from God. Like the various languages in the Bible. God didn't reveal the Greek language to the New Testament authors. That's just part of their culture. And so Greek finds its way into the Bible. Not because God revealed Greek as some holy language.

So it's the same thing with ANE concepts like leviathan. Or ANE cosmology. God isn't teaching people about a solid sky. It's just part of the culture worldview of the biblical authors. And so it makes its way into the Bible in various places. Including in Genesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so which part of genesis 1 is inerrant? Mankind is created in God’s image - true? Animals are not created in God’s image - true? Ok, now I will leave you to think about George and Lucy.

Another Way to observe the difference between Satan and Leviathan is, consider that Leviathan is described alongside behemoth. If Leviathan is Satan, then who would behemoth be? Second Satan or Satan's husband? But behemoth is described in more peaceful terms.

Behemoth is described in other ANE texts as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so which part of genesis 1 is inerrant? Mankind is created in God’s image - true? Animals are not created in God’s image - true? Ok, now I will leave you to think about George and Lucy.

One way to distinguish between revelation and cultural reference, would be to look at the cultural context of the original authors. If leviathan is a common cultural concept predating the authors and of nations in and around the authors, then, unless all those pagan nations also received divine revelation about leviathan, then you know it's a cultural concept.

Because imagine if this multi headed sea dragon were revealed in some fashion by God. And imagine if it were a real creature. Now all of a sudden you have countless pagan texts that also mysteriously have divinely revealed information in them. The caananites have divinely revealed information in their pagan texts.

That's a problem. That would be a massive problem. Especially if their texts were older than the Bible, which they are.

Pagan texts that include divinely inspired information that predate the Bible.

So a simple alternative is, it's cultural reference, with theological correction by Moses.

And then you also don't have to figure out why God would be revealing mythological multi headed fire breathing sea dragons. Which would be a strange thing for God to reach people about, if we are being honest about the topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

One way to distinguish between revelation and cultural reference, would be to look at the cultural context of the original authors. If leviathan is a common cultural concept predating the authors and of nations in and around the authors, then, unless all those pagan nations also received divine revelation about leviathan, then you know it's a cultural concept.

Because imagine if this multi headed sea dragon were revealed in some fashion by God. And imagine if it were a real creature. Now all of a sudden you have countless pagan texts that also mysteriously have divinely revealed information in them. The caananites have divinely revealed information in their pagan texts.

That's a problem. That would be a massive problem. Especially if their texts were older than the Bible, which they are.

Pagan texts that include divinely inspired information that predate the Bible.

So a simple alternative is, it's cultural reference, with theological correction by Moses.

And then you also don't have to figure out why God would be revealing mythological multi headed fire breathing sea dragons. Which would be a strange thing for God to reach people about, if we are being honest about the topic.

And this is the simple key to understanding Genesis^. Genesis isn't in a bubble. It includes cultural reference just like every other book in the Bible. Moses didn't live in a vacuum immune from his culture. He wasn't a hermit shut in who never went outside and never experienced any of the culture around himself.

He brought things with him, into the text. He's a human being after all.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so which part of genesis 1 is inerrant? Mankind is created in God’s image - true? Animals are not created in God’s image - true? Ok, now I will leave you to think about George and Lucy.

The Bible says that humanity was created in God's image. It doesn't appear to clarify on where God drew that line between people and ancestor homosapiens. And that's about it.

The original authors certainly didn't know about evolution over millions of years.

But in comparison to other ANE texts, we aren't made of demon blood as slaves to pagan deities like in caananite texts. So that's a plus. I think that's the real message. That theres a relationship and love there. People are elevated. Etc.

 

[olgamc]

The Bible says that humanity was created in God's image. It doesn't appear to clarify on where God drew that line between people and ancestor homosapiens. And that's about it.

The original authors certainly didn't know about evolution over millions of years.

But in comparison to other ANE texts, we aren't made of demon blood as slaves to pagan deities like in caananite texts. So that's a plus. I think that's the real message. That theres a relationship and love there. People are elevated. Etc.

You keep dodging the question.
People are created in God’s image.
Animals are not in God’s image.
Who was Lucy?

 

[Job 33:6]

You keep dodging the question.
People are created in God’s image.
Animals are not in God’s image.
Who was Lucy?

I think that Lucy, or Adams grandma, would have been human, in God's image, and judged differently than people after the fall.

 

[olgamc]

I think that Lucy, or Adams grandma, would have been human, in God's image, and judged differently than people after the fall.

Alright sure, but that means that we made a mistake and George or Adam is not the first human. Alright, since Lucy comes before George/Adam, let's say that Lucy is the first human. Would her father be a human or not a human?

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright sure, but that means that we made a mistake and George or Adam is not the first human. Alright, since Lucy comes before George/Adam, let's say that Lucy is the first human. Would her father be a human or not a human?

Who made a mistake about what?

The Bible doesn't specify where God defines what beings are made in His image, versus prior homo sapiens. We simply can't answer the question of where that distinction is.

I would guess that Lucy would be included because she very well could have still been alive at the time humanity was made in God's image. But there's no way to actually know.

 

[olgamc]

Who made a mistake about what?

We made a mistake when we said that George or Adam (my Adam, not the Biblical Adam) was the first human.

The Bible doesn't specify where God defines what beings are made in His image, versus prior homo sapiens. We simply can't answer the question of where that distinction is.

Ah. So in other words, we don’t know how or when humans actually came to existence?

(Except that the Bible does of course say that all people are people made in God’s image from the time that people were created. It’s actually science that doesn’t know what to do with people that existed before people existed. Well no wonder)

I would guess that Lucy would be included because she very well could have still been alive at the time humanity was made in God's image. But there's no way to actually know.

Right. So if we don’t actually know, why are we arguing like we do?

 

[Job 33:6]

We made a mistake when we said that George or Adam was the first human.

Ah. So in other words, we don’t know how or when humans actually came to existence?

In the Bible, we do not know when God created mankind in His Image.

That's not a matter of coming into existence. It's more like a dedication. It's not about material origins.

The Bible isn't a science textbook.

Right. So if we don’t actually know, why are we arguing like we do?

Probably for the above reason.

 

[olgamc]

In the Bible, we do not know when God created mankind in His Image.

Of course we do. On day 6.

That's not a matter of coming into existence. It's more like a dedication. It's not about material origins.

That’s what you say. It’s not what the Bible says.

The Bible isn't a science textbook.

Genesis is history.

Probably for the above reason.

So you do know how mankind came into existence? Let me guess, it evolved? Alright then, how did it evolve to be in God’s image?

Look, it’s all very simple. Evolution is a gradual transformation of one species into another. Which means that it’s a progression from being an animal to being a little bit less of an animal to being just a little bit less than human to finally being human. But if there is no such thing as being just a little bit less human, then evolution is not the right explanation. It just doesn’t fit, it doesn’t work for humans. Works for animals, but not for humans.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course we do. On day 6.

Well yes, but obviously we don't actually know what year that was in terms of material or scientific history.

That’s what you say. It’s not what the Bible says.

Sure it is.

So you do know how mankind came into existence? Let me guess, it evolved? Alright then, how did it evolve to be in God’s image?

Imago dei has nothing to do with evolution. We've already covered this.

 

[olgamc]

Well yes, but obviously we don't actually know what year that was in terms of material or scientific history.

Of course. I never said Bible spells out the year. But we do know when God made, as in created, mankind, and it is on day 6 of creation.

Sure it is.

You must be reading a different Bible. In my Bible, Genesis 1:26 says "let Us make mankind in our image", and Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in His image". As opposed to 2 Chronicles 7:5 "all the people dedicated the house of God".

Links to Hebrew:

• Genesis 1:26 Lexicon: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that cre
• Genesis 1:27 Lexicon: God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

  biblehub.com
• 2 Chronicles 7:5 Lexicon: King Solomon offered a sacrifice of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. Thus the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.

  biblehub.com

Imago dei has nothing to do with evolution. We've already covered this.

Exactly!!! Evolution has nothing to do with us who are created in God's image. And before you say that it applies to homo sapiens, you might want to decide what science says about how to treat people who existed before people existed.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course. I never said Bible spells out the year. But we do know when God made, as in created, mankind, and it is on day 6 of creation.

Well yes, obviously.

You must be reading a different Bible. In my Bible, Genesis 1:26 says "let Us make mankind in our image", and Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in His image". As opposed to 2 Chronicles 7:5 "all the people dedicated the house of God".

Links to Hebrew:

• Genesis 1:26 Lexicon: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that cre
• Genesis 1:27 Lexicon: God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

  biblehub.com
• 2 Chronicles 7:5 Lexicon: King Solomon offered a sacrifice of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. Thus the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.

  biblehub.com

Well that's why I recommended that you consider picking up a concordance for Bible study.

Strong's exhaustive concordance:
accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow.

Bara and Asah are used interchangeably and they can mean to make or to do.

Asah is translated as:
"provide" 18x
"Prepare" 46x

It can mean to take people under your care such as in Genesis 12:5 or Ecclesiastes 2:8

Midwives who defied Pharaoh, God provided to families, that's asah Exodus 1:21.

It can be translated as celebrate, Exodus 31:16, Exodus 34:22, numbers 9:4 to 14.

It can be translated as assigned, numbers 8:26.

It can be translated as appointed, first Kings 12: 31.

Among other things, so when it says that God Asah mankind, really it's something more like electing. And you don't have to use that word if you don't like it, you could use the word appointed if you want, or assigned, or prepared.

"God appointed mankind in His image."

It's not a material building or construction of people, rather it's more like a designation. It reflects mankind being chosen for a purpose.

We're not in grade school Sunday class anymore. Being lazy and assuming the word has to do with scientific material construction just isn't sufficient. The word is used to refer to non material assignment. "To make". Kind of like someone makes a football team. You can make a football team without materially building or manufacturing a football team out of clay. Right? So, the word isn't about manufacturing people.

Exactly!!! Evolution has nothing to do with us who are created in God's image. And before you say that it applies to homo sapiens, you might want to decide what science says about how to treat people who existed before people existed.

The theory of evolution says nothing about how to treat one another.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well yes, obviously.

Well that's why I recommended that you consider picking up a concordance for Bible study.

Strong's exhaustive concordance:
accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow.

Bara and Asah are used interchangeably and they can mean to make or to do.

Asah is translated as:
"provide" 18x
"Prepare" 46x

It can mean to take people under your care such as in Genesis 12:5 or Ecclesiastes 2:8

Midwives who defied Pharaoh, God provided families, that's asah Exodus 1:21.

It can be translated as celebrate, Exodus 31:16, Exodus 34:22, numbers 9:4 to 14.

It can be translated as assigned, numbers 8:26.

It can be translated as appointed, first Kings 12: 31.

Among other things, so when it says that God Asah mankind, really it's something more like electing. And you don't have to use that word if you don't like it, you could use the word appointed if you want, or assigned, or prepared.

"God appointed mankind in His image."

It's not a material building or construction of people, rather it's more like a designation. It reflects mankind being chosen for a purpose.

We're not in grade school Sunday class anymore. Being lazy and assuming the word has to do with scientific material construction just isn't sufficient. The word is used to refer to non material assignment. "To make". Kind of like someone makes a football team. You can make a football team without materially building or manufacturing a football team out of clay. Right? So, the word isn't about manufacturing people.



The theory of evolution says nothing about how to treat one another.

@olgamc
Another way to think of Asah, imagine if I said that I made a company. I made a football team. I made a recipe.

Just because I use the word "made" or "make" doesn't automatically mean that I'm gathering up biomolecules and building human beings to make a company. I'm not going out and grabbing carbon atoms to put together a recipe. Right?

To make, Asah or to do, we can't just run at the text assuming that it's talking about material manufacturing of bodies. The Bible isn't an anatomy textbook.

Other examples, God makes the Israelites, Deuteronomy 32:6. Hosea 8:14.

God makes the nations, Psalm 86:9.


It doesn't mean that God is physically building a city of people.

God made the moon to mark the seasons, Psalm 104:19.

The verse isn't saying that God manufactured the moon, rather the moon was assigned to mark the seasons.

God makes each day, Psalm 118:24.

God made summer and winter, Psalm 74:17.

God made the North and South, Psalm 89:12.

God isn't collecting bricks and building the north and south, The North and the south aren't objects to be built.

God made the human spirit, Zachariah 12:1.

Etc.

The word "made" or "make" shouldn't just be assumed to be about biological origins.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course. I never said Bible spells out the year. But we do know when God made, as in created, mankind, and it is on day 6 of creation.

You must be reading a different Bible. In my Bible, Genesis 1:26 says "let Us make mankind in our image", and Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in His image". As opposed to 2 Chronicles 7:5 "all the people dedicated the house of God".

Links to Hebrew:

• Genesis 1:26 Lexicon: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that cre
• Genesis 1:27 Lexicon: God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

  biblehub.com
• 2 Chronicles 7:5 Lexicon: King Solomon offered a sacrifice of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. Thus the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.

  biblehub.com

The point is that, it's not the English translations that we should be looking at, we should be looking at the Hebrew, to understand what the word actually means. Looking at how the word is commonly used, to understand what it's meaning is. And if we see that countless times "to make" is related to non-material making, such as if someone makes a career or makes a recipe, or makes a football team...

The if Genesis says that God makes humanity in His image, the first thing that comes to mind shouldn't be "oh I know, that's about biological origins!".

No! That's not how the word is used. That's not what it means "to make". That's not how the Bible uses that Hebrew word. Because "to make" is not automatically about materialistic manufacturing. Just like how if I make a football team, I don't have to have 20 babies and wait a couple decades for them to grow up to actually make a football team. Instead I can just call some friends up on the phone and can ask them to come play a game.

"To make" is not to just be automatically assumed as a biological manufacturing. Because I've said it before and I'll say it again,

The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[olgamc]

The point is that, it's not the English translations that we should be looking at, we should be looking at the Hebrew, to understand what the word actually means. Looking at how the word is commonly used, to understand what it's meaning is. And if we see that countless times "to make" is related to non-material making, such as if someone makes a career or makes a recipe, or makes a football team...

Right, you are referring to the word "make" in Genesis 1:26. (link this time is to strongs). That's fine, but when you make a recipe you are still creating or producing something - a set of instructions - that did not exist before. You can make a cupcake recipe and keep it in your head, and then it's just an immaterial concept. Or you can write it down on paper, and then it becomes an immaterial concept on a material piece of paper. You give it to someone else, and they can make a very material cupcake. Does dna and cell come to mind? God produces a set of instructions, writes it down as dna, gives dna to a cell, cell makes a human following God's instructions. Of course Moses didn't know any of that, but we do. And God did too when He said "let Us make a man in our image".

Now how about the word "created" in Genesis 1:27? - Shape/fashion/something new/miracle.

So according to Strong's, God said "let Us produce a man in our image" and "God miracled a man". See?

The if Genesis says that God makes humanity in His image, the first thing that comes to mind shouldn't be "oh I know, that's about biological origins!".

No! That's not how the word is used. That's not what it means "to make". That's not how the Bible uses that Hebrew word. Because "to make" is not automatically about materialistic manufacturing. Just like how if I make a football team, I don't have to have 20 babies and wait a couple decades for them to grow up to actually make a football team. Instead I can just call some friends up on the phone and can ask them to come play a game.

That's not a football team. That's a pick-up game. If you want to make a team, you take a bunch of people and you train them. You teach them how to work together, and you give them certain roles. And yes, you did just make something new that did not exist before. You took a bunch of individuals, you assigned them each a job, and you made them into a unit that works together. And you made them into a football team, not a basketball team and not a team of speed sewing seamstresses. Just like God made us in God's image for a specific purpose.

"To make" is not to just be automatically assumed as a biological manufacturing. Because I've said it before and I'll say it again,

The Bible is not a science textbook.

Did I say that Bible is a science textbook? LOL. Of course the word make is not necessarily biological. But people are biological, are we not? Also, I have a question for you. Since you agree that a person is not a scientific concept, why are you trying to explain how humans came to be with science?

Look, I wanted to show you something and leave you to think about it. I show a thing to 2 people independently of each other and ask them to draw what they see.

Person 1 draws this:

Person 2 draws this:

Did they draw the same thing?

 

[Job 33:6]

you give them certain roles. And yes, you did just make something new that did not exist before. You took a bunch of individuals, you assigned them each a job, and you made them into a unit that works together.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

You give them certain roles.

Exactly.

And that's what God did in Genesis 1:26, he gave mankind roles. To subdue and rule. He basically said, ok humanity, I'm going to make you into a football team. And as a team, your role is to subdue and rule.

And God is the ultimate football player, so we reflect his actions in heaven, on earth.

And that's it. Nothing to do with DNA. Nothing to do with biology. Nothing to do with material manufacturing.

And that's it. So we can move on now, knowing that Imago dei has nothing to do with science.