Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Indent]

To believe in God is to believe in the supernatural. Jesus confirmed the supernatural nature of the OT (Luke 24:44). Peter confirmed the truth of the NT If we cannot reconcile everything that is written in Scripture it means we are having difficulty understanding & accepting the supernatural.

I believe in the "supernatural." I still think it's far more reasonable and sensible to view Genesis as a "myth", rather than a document to be taken at face value.

 

[ken777]

I believe in the "supernatural." I still think it's far more reasonable and sensible to view Genesis as a "myth", rather than a document to be taken at face value.

"Face value" allows for symbolism & figurative language. Many Bible readers see a prophecy of Jesus Christ in Genesis 3:15, and Jesus Himself validated the OT (Luke 24:44). There is no suggestion by the apostles they considered any part of Scripture to be myth or containing errors. The "errors" & "contradictions" in the Bible have been addressed many times with plausible explanations.

 

[Geralt]

True. The apostle Paul quoting Adam in many parts of his epistles (e.g. Rom 5:14) proves without a doubt, in this case, the reality of a historical adam unlike the mytical assertions of neo-orthodoxy. that is good enough for me. christianity after all is built in the foundation of the apostles teachings.

in fact in the arguments made by Paul with regards to the contrast of Adam and Christ in romans 5:12 ff, there is NO GOSPEL if there is no historical adam.

and so those who argue for a mythical genesis (the first chapters) defends NOT an argument for correct literal analysis but a religion with no salvation.​

The principal dynamic of the Bible is that it is God's revelation of Himself to humankind which means it is without error. The "Christian brand" I prefer is that of Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I could be wrong, but it seems like you may be projecting. Indent didn't say it bothers him that others believe in God, nor did he say that God doesn't exist. I think he's simply asking for an explanation and valid argument as to how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled. I personally haven't heard much of a decent explanation yet.

I will apologize to him personally if He accepted Jesus as His Savior and believes He is God. I was tired when I read his one post about Stephen Hawkins. It appeared like he was saying he was smiling at what he said. Nobody that is Christian should ever feel comforted or happy by the words of a man who is anti-God.

...

 

[ken777]

True. The apostle Paul quoting Adam in many parts of his epistles (e.g. Rom 5:14) proves without a doubt, in this case, the reality of a historical adam unlike the mytical assertions of neo-orthodoxy. that is good enough for me. christianity after all is built in the foundation of the apostles teachings.

in fact in the arguments made by Paul with regards to the contrast of Adam and Christ in romans 5:12 ff, there is NO GOSPEL if there is no historical adam.

and so those who argue for a mythical genesis (the first chapters) defends NOT an argument for correct literal analysis but a religion with no salvation.​

Yes, I think those who defend a mythical creation story have not thought through the theological implications.

 

[Indent]

"Face value" allows for symbolism & figurative language. Many Bible readers see a prophecy of Jesus Christ in Genesis 3:15, and Jesus Himself validated the OT (Luke 24:44). There is no suggestion by the apostles they considered any part of Scripture to be myth or containing errors. The "errors" & "contradictions" in the Bible have been addressed many times with plausible explanations.

The "errors" are representative of an ancient worldview, which is what a person would expect from an ancient document, and it's inescapable no matter how loud the evangelical rhetoric.

Just like Christians are inescapably part of a community now. The performative "Christ-likeness" we see today differs from region to region (South America, Africa, England, the Bible belts in America), and evangelicalism mind finds its roots in 19th and 20th century developments. It's a reaction. It has been mentioned in this thread that evolution a debated topic in other part of the world, but it's a politically entrenched "controversy" in America.

The interpretation of Genesis has been going for more than a millennium. Where Augustine had written several book on Genesis a thousand years before the scientific revolution, and cautioned Christians of the dangerous pitfalls he foresaw.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

WOW, Jason!!! I'll set aside tomorrow to study this and your following posts!!! WOW!!!

Thank you. I have taken them from my one thread on evidences that support the Bible here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/general-list-of-biblical-evidences.7833944/

There are a few more there that you might like.

May God bless you.


...

 

[Indent]

True. The apostle Paul quoting Adam in many parts of his epistles (e.g. Rom 5:14) proves without a doubt, in this case, the reality of a historical adam unlike the mytical assertions of neo-orthodoxy. that is good enough for me. christianity after all is built in the foundation of the apostles teachings.

in fact in the arguments made by Paul with regards to the contrast of Adam and Christ in romans 5:12 ff, there is NO GOSPEL if there is no historical adam.

and so those who argue for a mythical genesis (the first chapters) defends NOT an argument for correct literal analysis but a religion with no salvation.​

I disagree that Romans 5 proves the historicity of Adam (but I have no problem accepting Adam was a literal person), and it further does not prove without a reasonable doubt that Genesis is a journalistic account of material origins.

There are a handful of diverse views on Adam. Peter Enns has a good discussion paper on Paul's Adam.

https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/enns_adam_white_paper.pdf

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There are theological implications to consider if you say humans are simply evolved animals ... and whether those implications are consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Why can't we be evolved animals but not just "simply" evolved animals . . . being a special kind creature, a creature that is a living soul before God?

The truth is no Christian would worry about evolution at all except those who believe their literal interpretation of the creation narratives precludes evolution, those Christians deny evolution and all the evidence for evolution because of those narratives.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well. yes---
The day starts in the evening, and ends at the end of the morning. So, yes, It's 12 hrs, evening, 12 hour morning, 24 hr.
There are 24 verses with evening and morning mentioned. From Gen to Acts. Those obviously mean 12 hr---they say--from evening unto the morning, or from morning to evening, or morning till evening. Dan. 8 I believe seems to indicate the same thing--
The difference with Gen. 1 is that the days are numbered, Day one to day 7. The evening and the morning, day one. The evening and the morning day two--and so on. There really can be no other interpretation but 24 hr days. Evening and morning--one eon? The vegetation was all on day 3---then the sun on the 4th day. To read that as though it was an eon when the vegetation was without sun, makes no sense whatsoever. That the sun was created the next day--so they didn't have the sun for several hrs, no big deal, they won't die, there was still the invisible light from day one till then. And again, to then say that after He had created man He rested from creating for an eon and hallowed and sanctified an eon makes no sense either.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
And you csn not then read Exodus as eons either.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He did not instruct the Jews to not work for eons---He says He created the world in 6 days there, and He wrote it with His own finger twice. He ceased work on the 7th day and He sanctified that day, not that age.

Its perfectly possible for eons to be referenced by days in our seven day week observances. That's not a compelling arguement. The argument rests on what the evidence says in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes versus what the scriptures say and how we should interpret those scriptures.

 

[AV1611VET]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

The 'simply overwhelming evidence' is only on paper.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots -- it only works on paper.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The 'simply overwhelming evidence' is only on paper.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots -- it only works on paper.

You should have been a defense attorney for mob hit men. You could stand before the jury and assert "My client should be presumed innocent. The state has only played a game of connect the dots, it only works on paper". This with the fingerprints of the accused on the gun, the bullets in the gun, and a photograph of the gun in the accused hand the night before the murder.

You bear in your body thousands of retroviral inserts that are shared with other ape species. Most of them serve no purpose, being mere mute witnesses of ancient attempts by a virus to infect your animal ancestors. The sharing across species is compelling evidence that those separate species were once united in a common ancestral species.

But it remains, ever, only evidence.

Sometimes the jury lets a clearly guilty party go because a stubborn juror refuses to convict, regardless of the evidence.

We humans have to live with such results.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should have been a defense attorney for mob hit men. You could stand before the jury and assert "My client should be presumed innocent. The state has only played a game of connect the dots, it only works on paper". This with the fingerprints of the accused on the gun, the bullets in the gun, and a photograph of the gun in the accused hand the night before the murder.

Would the DA be telling the jury it took 2 million years to plan and carry out the hit? or just six days?

 

[Jamie Lee]

No, I do not forget about the land, I bring that up a lot for those who believe Jesus reigns on earth--- as it is also pointing to 6000 years, and then 1000 years of the whole planet resting.
There is still no way that God created the vegetation and then went eons before creating the sun. I have heard that Jesus is the light before, which has merit, but I do not accept Enoch. The rotation of the earth is the 24 hr, not the sun. It actually takes 23 hrs and 54 min. so we have leap years. The Egyptians made some things around it, and the Greeks, bottom line, it is still the rotation of the earth.

Heres an explanation of the factors that cause length of days on planets.
http://www.universetoday.com/37481/days-of-the-planets/

"Here on Earth, we tend to take time for granted, never suspected that the increments with which we measure it are actually quite relative. The ways in which we measure our days and years, for example, are actually the result of our planet’s distance from the Sun, the time it takes to orbit, and the time it takes to rotate on its axis. The same is true for the other planets in our Solar System.

While we Earthlings count on a day being about 24 hours from sunup to sunup, the length of a single day on another planet is quite different. In some cases, they are very short, while in others, they can last longer than years – sometimes considerably! Let’s go over how time works on other planets and see just how long their days can be, shall we?

A Day On Mercury:

Mercury is the closest planet to our Sun, ranging from 46,001,200 km at perihelion (closest to the Sun) to 69,816,900 km at aphelion (farthest). Since it takes 58.646 Earth days for Mercury to rotate once on its axis – aka. its sidereal rotation period – this means that it takes just over 58 Earth days for Mercury to experience a single day.

However, this is not to say that Mercury experiences two sunrises in just over 58 days. Due to its proximity to the Sun and rapid speed with which it circles it, it takes the equivalent of 175.97 Earth days for the Sun to reappear in the same place in the sky. Hence, while the planet rotates once every 58 Earth days, it is roughly 176 days from one sunrise to the next on Mercury."

In Genesis, a day is defined as "the light", and the darkness 'night", and each day is counted "there was morning, and there was evening-the first day". The Bible uses this definition of day. A Sabbath day started on Friday night at sunset and ended Saturday night at sunset. It was about the light.

If Jude quotes Enoch, then Jude is either quoting an untrue book and a false prophet, which means you could argue the Bible is errant, or Enoch was real and what he said was true.

Even if one rejects Enoch, which is fair, that doesnt mean that the theory itself is false. Genesis doesnt explain where the light was coming from, and we know it wasnt the sun.

 

[Indent]

Heres an explanation of the factors that cause length of days on planets.
http://www.universetoday.com/37481/days-of-the-planets/

"Here on Earth, we tend to take time for granted, never suspected that the increments with which we measure it are actually quite relative. The ways in which we measure our days and years, for example, are actually the result of our planet’s distance from the Sun, the time it takes to orbit, and the time it takes to rotate on its axis. The same is true for the other planets in our Solar System.

While we Earthlings count on a day being about 24 hours from sunup to sunup, the length of a single day on another planet is quite different. In some cases, they are very short, while in others, they can last longer than years – sometimes considerably! Let’s go over how time works on other planets and see just how long their days can be, shall we?

A Day On Mercury:

Mercury is the closest planet to our Sun, ranging from 46,001,200 km at perihelion (closest to the Sun) to 69,816,900 km at aphelion (farthest). Since it takes 58.646 Earth days for Mercury to rotate once on its axis – aka. its sidereal rotation period – this means that it takes just over 58 Earth days for Mercury to experience a single day.

However, this is not to say that Mercury experiences two sunrises in just over 58 days. Due to its proximity to the Sun and rapid speed with which it circles it, it takes the equivalent of 175.97 Earth days for the Sun to reappear in the same place in the sky. Hence, while the planet rotates once every 58 Earth days, it is roughly 176 days from one sunrise to the next on Mercury."

In Genesis, a day is defined as "the light", and the darkness 'night", and each day is counted "there was morning, and there was evening-the first day". The Bible uses this definition of day. A Sabbath day started on Friday night at sunset and ended Saturday night at sunset. It was about the light.

If Jude quotes Enoch, then Jude is either quoting an untrue book and a false prophet, which means you could argue the Bible is errant, or Enoch was real and what he said was true.

Even if one rejects Enoch, which is fair, that doesnt mean that the theory itself is false. Genesis doesnt explain where the light was coming from, and we know it wasnt the sun.

John Walton puts forward some interesting discussion material for Genesis 1 ("The Lost World of Genesis 1"), and there's plenty of commentary about him around the internet to get a sense of his perspective.

He has a very different understanding of the word "day."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

John Walton puts forward some interesting discussion material for Genesis 1 ("The Lost World of Genesis 1"), and there's plenty of commentary about him around the internet to get a sense of his perspective.

He has a very different understanding of the word "day."

The problem with the Day Age Theory is that Genesis says there is a night and day attached to the numberng of the days. If you are to assume the days are speaking of long periods of time, then we must also assume the night and day are long periods of time, too. Meaning, the night period time would be for thousands of years. This would be a problem because the plant life thrives on the sun along with the animals who depend on that plant life (in order to survive).

Also, Adam is a literal person: Adam is not metaphorical and he is the first man within the creation. Just look at the geneology of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3. For it traces Christ's genealogical line thru Mary all the way back to Adam.

Furthermore, Jesus says,

4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6).

Why does the Lord say they are one flesh? Because they are joined together in being physically intimate, which is symbolic of their origins. For God took a rib out of Adam's side and made Eve; And Eve is called the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20).

Now, if you believe there was a Pre-Adamic race based on the words "old world" in 2 Peter 2:5: Well, this would be ignoring the context that it is talking about the saving of Noah in that very same verse.

Also, Jeremiah 4:23-27 does not support a Pre-Adamic race, either. Here is what it says,

"I looked at the earth. It was empty; there was nothing on it. I looked at the sky, and its light was gone. I looked at the mountains, and... they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly to and fro. I looked, but there were no people. All the birds of the sky had flown away. I looked, and the fruitful land had become a desert. All its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. This is what the LORD says: The whole earth will be ruined, although I will not destroy it completely." (Jeremiah 4:23 ERV, Jeremiah 4:24 AMP, Jeremiah 4:25 ERV, Jeremiah 4:26a ISV, Jeremiah 4:26b WEB, Jeremiah 4:27 GWT).​

But what is it talking about really? It is talking about the utter destruction of this world after Jesus returns (And all the nations come up against Him).

Revelation 16:16 and Revelation 16:14

And He gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. To gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

• Revelation 19:17-18

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying

"To all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."


...

 

[Jamie Lee]

The problem with the Day Age Theory is that Genesis says there is a night and day attached to the numberng of the days. If you are to assume the days are speaking of long periods of time, then we must also assume the night and day are long periods of time, too. Meaning, the night period time would be for thousands of years. This would be a problem because the plant life thrives on the sun along with the animals who depend on that plant life (in order to survive).

Also, Adam is a literal person: Adam is not metaphorical and he is the first man within the creation. Just look at the geneology of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3. For it traces Christ's genealogical line thru Mary all the way back to Adam.

Furthermore, Jesus says,

4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6).

Why does the Lord say they are one flesh? Because God took a rib out of Adam's side and made Eve.
And Eve is called the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20).

Now, if you believe there was a Pre-Adamic race based on the words "old world" in 2 Peter 2:5: Well, this would be ignoring the context that it is talking about the saving of Noah in that very same verse.

Also, Jeremiah 4:23-27 does not support a Pre-Adamic race, either. Here is what it says,

"I looked at the earth. It was empty; there was nothing on it. I looked at the sky, and its light was gone. I looked at the mountains, and... they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly to and fro. I looked, but there were no people. All the birds of the sky had flown away. I looked, and the fruitful land had become a desert. All its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. This is what the LORD says: The whole earth will be ruined, although I will not destroy it completely." (Jeremiah 4:23 ERV, Jeremiah 4:24 AMP, Jeremiah 4:25 ERV, Jeremiah 4:26a ISV, Jeremiah 4:26b WEB, Jeremiah 4:27 GWT).​

But what is it talking about really? It is talking about the utter destruction of this world after Jesus returns (And all the nations come up against Him).

Revelation 16:16 and Revelation 16:14

And He gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. To gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

• Revelation 19:17-18 and Revelation 19:14
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying

"To all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.


...

I dont think thats necessarily true. In certain seasons in Alaska, for instance, the nights can last only a few seconds.
Also, there are different periods of time in Earths history, the tropical era, the ice age, the molten era... it would take more in depth research to figure out how that would all work though and I dont have that kind of expertise. But, all the same, God could have created the world in a much different way than we might have thought, and we cant really know what he did. He could have done it any way he wanted, he has control over time and space and physics.
I believe Adam was a literal person. He was the first fully evolved modern man.
I dont understand the reference to Armageddon though.

 

[Geralt]

i am not proving the historicity of Adam, all im saying is Paul believes he was real and that is ok with me. i follow what the apostle wrote, who lived 2000 yrs before us.

unless of course you presume Paul also was comparing a mythical adam with a historical jesus in his treatise in Romans 5 to get his point accross.​

I disagree that Romans 5 proves the historicity of Adam (but I have no problem accepting Adam was a literal person), and it further does not prove without a reasonable doubt that Genesis is a journalistic account of material origins.

There are a handful of diverse views on Adam. Peter Enns has a good discussion paper on Paul's Adam.

https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/enns_adam_white_paper.pdf

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Would the DA be telling the jury it took 2 million years to plan and carry out the hit? or just six days?

I doubt that, in our example, the DA would have evidence supporting a 2 million year plan. That fact does not mean the evidence for the age of the earth is insufficient. It is sufficient. But of course, you're not proposing this alone as a serious objection, I realize that.

The view of the universe science has uncovered is surprising and awesome, and gives God great glory for what He did. Of course, those who cannot accept it because of 3000 year old words in the Bible will continue to reject it but they will be . . . dare I say it . . . . left behind.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Post pending.