Creationism/Evolution

[Taodeching]

It had to be written for the people of the time.

Exactly it is quite disingenuous to take a book that is quite ancient and ascribe modern notions to said book plus acting like what the English translation is actually what the book really says in the original language

 

[Lawrence87]

I think it depends if you think that evolution was the intended means of creation that God deemed good then you run into error, because the history of humanity looks like an uphill triumph rather than a tale of falling from grace. You are forced to ask where the fall was from which we need redemption when things only seem to have improved over history. We have become more intelligent and innovative and less beset by problems. We project forwards and we see that the trend is liable to lead to further improvement.

I think you can reconcile the two by posing that the world we see with it's apparent evolution is the result of the fall and our distance from God. And that we have been sealed off from ever knowing what life was like in paradise. That evolution was not creation but rather the process of being clothed in animal flesh. We were cast out into a world altered by our transgression to reflect the distance we had created between ourselves and God.

This resolves the issues posed by the appearance of progress through the history of humanity, because none of that progress will ever restore us to that pre fall state, and it resolves the issues of creationism namely the having to explain away fossils and such.

 

[Silverback]

God decided to give Adam a helper and created her?

Remember, the Bible was written in a time when they didn't know what we know today. It had to be written for the people of the time. We are reading books from before Christ was born and afterward, but not in modern times. We understand that the world is round, that the earth rotates around the sun, etc... Since they didn't back then, the Bible was written for the people of the time and how they understood things to be.

I believe in evolution and Christ, just because you believe one doesn't mean that you cannot believe in the other.

I would disagree, creation is at the heart of Christianity, the fall brought sin and death into the world, all of creation suffers under sin, if we were not sinful in our nature, then Christ died for nothing. The scriptures contain Gods revelation to man, it has to be accepted that God will preserve his word for all generations, and must also be accepted that it contains all things need for salvation.

I know some very fine people who believe in evolution, and also claim to be Christian believers, but they are always trying to fit the biblical narrative into their beliefs in science.

Speaking for myself, I disregard science that disagrees with scripture, science may compliment biblical beliefs from time to time, but IMHO science takes a back seat.

 

[Greengardener]

A few thoughts from a different set of eyes for your consideration.

"To be a Christian" would need some sort of mutually agreeable definition. To "believe in Christ" is quite vague. I'd think that Jesus said a lot about who it is who loves Him, and it's the one who does according to His teaching, as Jesus Himself did according to the teaching of JHWH, The I Am. So Jesus didn't come into a separate story: He is integral with what the whole of the the Bible is about. Jesus referenced the Genesis account of the creation of mankind and the story of Jonah without critical commentary, implying that we can accept what was said. We can live by every word out of the mouth of God, so I would personally lean on believing what was written in both old and new testaments for the message it conveys. An additional thing that "Christians" believe in is the atonement by Jesus's sacrifice of His flesh and His bodily resurrection to pay for the sins of anyone who repents and turns to Him. All the behaviors describing how Christians should live in the new testament are fully supported in the Ten Commandments and the law given in the old testament.

Because of that I often recommend reading the whole of the Bible, comparing the history with the prophecies to get an idea of how the middle fits in with the beginning and the end of the Book. Religion is a totally different thing: apart from relationship it is empty and useless, so I don't have much use for a term of being a "Christian" as someone who warms a pew, observes rituals, or goes through the motions without interest in what Jesus said. I've been amazed at how a deeper study of the parts of the Bible most Christians never see makes so much sense and shows how life is supposed to work. I realize I really can live by His words to make sense out of life more effectively than science alone. Science is limited by our view of the facts. It's good, but it's limited. We should keep at a logical study of what is around us but we shouldn't stop short with strange conclusions such as the theory of evolution. The facts exist that many life-forms have similarities of patterns; but to be bluntly honest, we weren't there to know for sure that our theories, our time dating analyses, or anything else on which evolution depends, is really reflective of what actually happened. I'm not anti-science at all, but I do think it's a bit arrogant to take a stand based on the limited understanding that we've been able to theorize about. Also the theory of evolution is useless in encouraging us to be all that we are called to be. Wouldn't a Christian agree with the Bible that people were made in the image of the Almighty and called to voluntarily behave in kindly oversight to the rest of creation and in fairness, justice, and caring to others as the Ten Commandments and the Law spells out and that to do otherwise makes communities unsafe? In my view it would probably behoove us to seek the One Who put such a wonderful curiosity in us when we were created. I encourage everyone to seek this Creator Who gave you this great gift of life, take time to find out what He's already told us (it's in the Bible) and see how that impacts your thinking. I think at that point it will clearly show the answer to your question.

 

[chilehed]

My question is, is evolution compatible with a belief in Christianity?

Yes.

 

[Simon D]

Exactly it is quite disingenuous to take a book that is quite ancient and ascribe modern notions to said book plus acting like what the English translation is actually what the book really says in the original language

I would have said it's quite disingenuous to ignore the teachings of Paul and Jesus who both quote from Genesis, but it is not disingenuous to discuss reconciling their position with the idea of theistic evolution.

1 Cor 15 tells us that as a man came death (Adam) by a man has also came the resurrection of the dead (Jesus).

If evolution is true we have to consider changing this to mean that by mankind sin entered the world, then how can the analogy be continued unless we say by mankind that the world was redeemed. This isn't the case, it's redeemed by Jesus, one man.

 

[Simon D]

A few thoughts from a different set of eyes for your consideration.

"To be a Christian" would need some sort of mutually agreeable definition. To "believe in Christ" is quite vague. I'd think that Jesus said a lot about who it is who loves Him, and it's the one who does according to His teaching, as Jesus Himself did according to the teaching of JHWH, The I Am. So Jesus didn't come into a separate story: He is integral with what the whole of the the Bible is about. Jesus referenced the Genesis account of the creation of mankind and the story of Jonah without critical commentary, implying that we can accept what was said. We can live by every word out of the mouth of God, so I would personally lean on believing what was written in both old and new testaments for the message it conveys. An additional thing that "Christians" believe in is the atonement by Jesus's sacrifice of His flesh and His bodily resurrection to pay for the sins of anyone who repents and turns to Him. All the behaviors describing how Christians should live in the new testament are fully supported in the Ten Commandments and the law given in the old testament.

Because of that I often recommend reading the whole of the Bible, comparing the history with the prophecies to get an idea of how the middle fits in with the beginning and the end of the Book. Religion is a totally different thing: apart from relationship it is empty and useless, so I don't have much use for a term of being a "Christian" as someone who warms a pew, observes rituals, or goes through the motions without interest in what Jesus said. I've been amazed at how a deeper study of the parts of the Bible most Christians never see makes so much sense and shows how life is supposed to work. I realize I really can live by His words to make sense out of life more effectively than science alone. Science is limited by our view of the facts. It's good, but it's limited. We should keep at a logical study of what is around us but we shouldn't stop short with strange conclusions such as the theory of evolution. The facts exist that many life-forms have similarities of patterns; but to be bluntly honest, we weren't there to know for sure that our theories, our time dating analyses, or anything else on which evolution depends, is really reflective of what actually happened. I'm not anti-science at all, but I do think it's a bit arrogant to take a stand based on the limited understanding that we've been able to theorize about. Also the theory of evolution is useless in encouraging us to be all that we are called to be. Wouldn't a Christian agree with the Bible that people were made in the image of the Almighty and called to voluntarily behave in kindly oversight to the rest of creation and in fairness, justice, and caring to others as the Ten Commandments and the Law spells out and that to do otherwise makes communities unsafe? In my view it would probably behoove us to seek the One Who put such a wonderful curiosity in us when we were created. I encourage everyone to seek this Creator Who gave you this great gift of life, take time to find out what He's already told us (it's in the Bible) and see how that impacts your thinking. I think at that point it will clearly show the answer to your question.

Bingo!

Some say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is referenced in the very figs and loincloths that clothed the first humans. That the fig leaves represent man's effort (which failed), and the sacrifice of the animal for the loincloth which was acceptable to clothe the first two humans represent the sacrifice the very Lord Himself would make on the tree.

The Old testament and the new testament really are connected and interwoven. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

 

[Isilwen]

Christ died for nothing

I never said that or implied that at all. We are all sinners and need Christ for that reason. However, my belief in evolution does not negate that I am a Christian or believe in Christ and that He died for our sins and has risen to sit at the right hand of the father.

 

[renniks]

Remember, the Bible was written in a time when they didn't know what we know today. It had to be written for the people of the time. We are reading books from before Christ was born and afterward, but not in modern times. We understand that the world is round, that the earth rotates around the sun, etc... Since they didn't back then, the Bible was written for the people of the time and how they understood things to be.

Speculation at best. I suspect a lot of information was lost post flood. Maybe not carpentry, but Noah surely couldn't pass on everything.

 

[Isilwen]

Speculation at best.

If you say so. I wholeheartedly disagree that it is speculation. There is so much that we have learned over just the last couple hundred years that weren't even dreamed about in the time when the Bible was written.

I suspect a lot of information was lost post flood.

What did you say about speculation at best?

 

[renniks]

If you say so. I wholeheartedly disagree that it is speculation. There is so much that we have learned over just the last couple hundred years that weren't even dreamed about in the time when the Bible was written.

Or we just don't have records of everything they knew. Modern science has only rediscovered and perfected old ideas.

 

[Isilwen]

Or we just don't have records of everything they knew. Modern science has only rediscovered and perfected old ideas.

Your opinion is noted and I continue to disagree.

 

[Simon D]

Your opinion is noted and I continue to disagree.

If Genesis is a myth then a lot of Paul's explanation for Christ's death has to be abandoned.

 

[Isilwen]

If Genesis is a myth then a lot of Paul's explanation for Christ's death has to be abandoned.

Now words are being put into my mouth essentially. Never said Genesis is a myth.

 

[Simon D]

Now words are being put into my mouth essentially. Never said Genesis is a myth.

I've already asked you how you reconcile Eve (and Adam) in terms of evolution with Genesis. It's obvious that if evolution is believed then Genesis is wrong, because you don't evolve into a walking talking man if your immediate mother was an animal... But it's not like I am being disingenuous and didn't ask you how you do it... Please tell

 

[Isilwen]

I've already asked you how you reconcile Eve (and Adam) in terms of evolution with Genesis. It's obvious that if evolution is believed then Genesis is wrong, because you don't evolve into a walking talking man if your immediate mother was an animal... But it's not like I am being disingenuous and didn't ask you how you do it... Please tell

I replied to it already. If you don't like the answer, I'm not sure what to tell you, but I would prefer it that you not tell me what it is that I believe as if you are me. One can believe in evolution and Genesis. They are not mutually exclusive.

Either way, it is not a salvation issue.

 

[Simon D]

I replied to it already. If you don't like the answer, I'm not sure what to tell you, but I would prefer it that you not tell me what it is that I believe as if you are me. One can believe in evolution and Genesis. They are not mutually exclusive.

Either way, it is not a salvation issue.

I seen you give me an answer about Adam, but you didn't explain how he managed to learn language all by himself or how his animal mother wasn't mentioned in the Bible for some reason. I didn't see you explain where Eve evolved from (because why would Adam evolve but Eve was created... Why not just create Adam and Eve like the Bible says?).

Important questions I feel, if I missed your answers I apologise, please redirect me to them if you did, thanks (I looked through the thread and I couldn't see them).

 

[Freth]

Hello!

I have a question and I would appreciate the input of the good people of this fine internet community!

My question is, is evolution compatible with a belief in Christianity?

So for some background to my research on this, I understand there is strict creationism (Genesis is literal), then there is the position that it is just a story, and that life evolved through theistic evolution. It's even said that Genesis creation was never to be taken at least fully literally.

So here is my thing, if evolution is true, why did Paul say,

'For Adam was first formed, then Eve.' 1 Tim 2:13.

It is clear that Paul believed in a literal creation of Adam, then Eve.

So if Paul is making it clear that it is not a story, but it's true, how can theistic evolution be reconciled as a genuine Christian belief?

Jesus, concerning the word of God.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

Some commentaries on these verses:

This sanction is like a flaming sword, to guard the canon of the scripture from profane hands. —Matthew Henry Commentary, page 1986

In these very remarkable words we have two things—the possibility and the penalty of a great crime. The great crime is adding to and taking away from the Word. —Pulpit Commentary, volume 22, page 579

A Warning—This warning against adding or subtracting puts the Book of Revelation on the same level as Old Testament words of God (Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32). The word of God is to be protected from corruption, and distinguished from mere human words. —Reformation Study Bible NKJV, page 2035.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
​

Conclusion: Adding to or taking away from the creation account is not something we should be doing.

 

[Isilwen]

I seen you give me an answer about Adam, but you didn't explain how he managed to learn language all by himself or how his animal mother wasn't mentioned in the Bible for some reason. I didn't see you explain where Eve evolved from (because why would Adam evolve but Eve was created... Why not just create Adam and Eve like the Bible says?).

Important questions I feel, if I missed your answers I apologise, please redirect me to them if you did, thanks (I looked through the thread and I couldn't see them).

I answered it the best way that I could. I am not the best at explaining my thoughts.

So, here, this is basically my belief in a nutshell from an Episcopalian like me, except I'm not a scientist like this person.

The Origins of Life: An Episcopal View

 

[Silverback]

Bingo!

Some say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is referenced in the very figs and loincloths that clothed the first humans. That the fig leaves represent man's effort (which failed), and the sacrifice of the animal for the loincloth which was acceptable to clothe the first two humans represent the sacrifice the very Lord Himself would make on the tree.

The Old testament and the new testament really are connected and interwoven. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

I think the fig leaves and loin cloth are more likely to just be clothing that was readily available. It seems a stretch to me that it has any other meaning...just my thoughts.