Does evolutionary creationism fit within a conservative evangelical perspective?

[cupid dave]

NOT.

IT CLEARLY says one MAN.
he was not figurative, and this passage doesnt come close to suggesting this idea.

The end of verse 12 says "and in this WAY death came to all men."


And the rest speaks of the ONE man. .

Of course it was one man.

That man was the first actual human to branch off from the other Apes by the occurrence of a genetic mutation in the womb.
The Apes have 24 Chromosomes.

This new species ha only 23 Chromosomes because two iof the Ape chromosomes fused together.

Scientists can actually see that this mutation occurred in what was previously an Ape because in the middle of the second human chromosome there is the tail or telemere of the one that fused.

 

[Huram Abi]

You mean "Geological Era."

Funny that you should try to correct someone and get it wrong yourself.

4 of those are Eons, not eras.

The 3 that are eras are a subset of one of the listed eons.

 

[1an]

Funny that you should try to correct someone and get it wrong yourself.

4 of those are Eons, not eras.

The 3 that are eras are a subset of one of the listed eons.

Excellent information. Thank you for posting.

.

 

[conamer]

You mean "Geological Era."

Couple this thought to the fact that the Genesis writers chose the special word "yowm" to designate the seven "days.'
Yowm actually can mean ANY duration of time including an Age.

Ah, yes, Yowm has many meanings but when used in conjunction with a number, It can only mean one literal day. The 6 days of creation.

 

[1an]

Ah, yes, Yowm has many meanings but when used in conjunction with a number, It can only mean one literal day. The 6 days of creation.

Wrong!

It can also mean one literal year, or one literal era etc.

.

 

[gluadys]

Wrong!

It can also mean one literal year, or one literal era etc.

.

Not to mention that it can also mean one literary day/year/era etc.



Literal can be either historical or literary. A literal meaning of a word is not sufficient to designate the whole text as historical rather than literary. Nor is a figurative meaning of a word sufficient to designate the text as a whole as not referring to literal history.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is a pity B B Warfield didn't write on the subject, because he was a conservative by anybody's standards, but in his later years he also called himself an "evolutionist of the purest water."

Personally, I don't think Genesis gives a scientific account of creation, and I don't think the human author thought in those terms. He was writing about what to him was important, such as God as creator, his lordship over all creation, and our responsibility to him.

In 1,000BC people hadn't even begun to think in terms of how to describe the physical processes which brought the world into being.

 

[Aman777]

It is a pity B B Warfield didn't write on the subject, because he was a conservative by anybody's standards, but in his later years he also called himself an "evolutionist of the purest water."

Personally, I don't think Genesis gives a scientific account of creation, and I don't think the human author thought in those terms. He was writing about what to him was important, such as God as creator, his lordship over all creation, and our responsibility to him.

In 1,000BC people hadn't even begun to think in terms of how to describe the physical processes which brought the world into being.

Dear Les, Personally, I believe Genesis does give a scientific account of creation since it was authored by God's Himself. I do not believe an ancient man could have possibly told us the Day of the Big Bang. Genesis 2:4, the fact that all Natual creatures had their origin in the water on the 5th Day, Genesis 1:21 nor the difference between Natual men (sons of God) and humans (Adam). Genesis 6:4

The problem is the traditional, pre-scientific, theology of ancient men who could not understand Genesis.

In Love,
Aman

 

[lesliedellow]

I do not believe an ancient man could have possibly told us the Day of the Big Bang.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Even if God had wanted to (and there is no reason why he should) he wouldn't have been able to give them a scientific theory of creation. At least not without first delivering a crash course in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

I do not believe an ancient man could have possibly told us the Day of the Big Bang.
​

Les:>>I couldn't have put it better myself. Even if God had wanted to (and there is no reason why he should) he wouldn't have been able to give them a scientific theory of creation. At least not without first delivering a crash course in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.

Dear Les, You misunderstand me. God does tell us of the beginning of our Cosmos, or what scientists refer to as the Big Bang. It was on the 3rd Day, according to Genesis 2:4, the SAME Day the first earth was made. Genesis 1:9-10

The first firmament or heaven, as God called it, was made the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8 This confirms what today's physicists are trying to confirm and that is that we live in a Multiverse, and not just a Universe. NO ancient man could have possibly told us this. It's proof of God.

In Love,
Aman

 

[lesliedellow]

Originally Posted by Aman777

I do not believe an ancient man could have possibly told us the Day of the Big Bang.
​

Les:>>I couldn't have put it better myself. Even if God had wanted to (and there is no reason why he should) he wouldn't have been able to give them a scientific theory of creation. At least not without first delivering a crash course in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.

Dear Les, You misunderstand me. God does tell us of the beginning of our Cosmos, or what scientists refer to as the Big Bang. It was on the 3rd Day, according to Genesis 2:4, the SAME Day the first earth was made. Genesis 1:9-10

The first firmament or heaven, as God called it, was made the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8 This confirms what today's physicists are trying to confirm and that is that we live in a Multiverse, and not just a Universe. NO ancient man could have possibly told us this. It's proof of God.

In Love,
Aman

Absolute rubbish. The universe was created 13.7 billion tears ago, and the earth 9.1 billion years after that. Physicists speculate about the possibility of a multiverse for a number of reasons, and, for at least some of them (though not all), the reason is that a multiverse would help explain away the fine tuning of the fundamental constants, which might otherwise be taken as pointing to the existence of God.

I really do not think that even the original author intended what he wrote to be taken as a literal account of creation - and Genesis did have a human author as well as a divine one.

 

[Aman777]

Dear Les, You misunderstand me. God does tell us of the beginning of our Cosmos, or what scientists refer to as the Big Bang. It was on the 3rd Day, according to Genesis 2:4, the SAME Day the first earth was made. Genesis 1:9-10

The first firmament or heaven, as God called it, was made the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8 This confirms what today's physicists are trying to confirm and that is that we live in a Multiverse, and not just a Universe. NO ancient man could have possibly told us this. It's proof of God.

Les:>>Absolute rubbish.

Dear Les, Not so. It's God's Holy Word.

Les:>>The universe was created 13.7 billion tears ago, and the earth 9.1 billion years after that. Physicists speculate about the possibility of a multiverse for a number of reasons, and, for at least some of them (though not all), the reason is that a multiverse would help explain away the fine tuning of the fundamental constants, which might otherwise be taken as pointing to the existence of God.

In the last days, Scoffers will be willingly ignorant that the first world was totally and completely destroyed in the Flood. They will also not believe that our world will be burned. ll Peter 3:3-7 Each of God's Days or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length.
The beginning of our Cosmos was on the 3rd Day, Genesis 2:4 some 13.7 Billion years ago, in man's time. Remember that man's time did not begin until the 4th Day.

Les:>>I really do not think that even the original author intended what he wrote to be taken as a literal account of creation - and Genesis did have a human author as well as a divine one.

The human who wrote the words down was breathed those words by the Holy Spirit who moved him to write them. The Holy Spirit is God and He is the author of Scripture. The human who wrote them did NOT know that he was writing the scientific truth which would not be discovered for another 3 thousand years. You don't seem to understand them either.

IF you did, you would realize that the TOE is seriously in error. The problem is that the TOE does not and cannot explain how and when we evolved our human intelligence, which could only have been inherited from Adam, the first human.

In Love,
Aman

 

[lesliedellow]

It does for some. Tremper Longman for one, and Benjamin Warfield for another, but mostly no (regrettably).

 

[Archie the Preacher]

It certainly fits mine.

(I would take exception to the phrase 'evolutionary creationism' as it caters to a rather ignorant view of the scientific approach to God's work of Creation, but it seems to have meaning - or at least be understood - in this context.)

 

[rcorlew]

ALL have sinned is the present tense of the statement. You ignore that and the first part. BY ONE MAN sin entered into the world. To enter INTO it would not be there to start with. And you can also say it as, "and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" and read verse 18.

john 1 and hebrews 11:3

I do believe it says that it was made from things not seen in Hebrews, not to mention that the verse and context are talking about faith. The rules of hermeneutics say that you have to let the Bible interpret itself by using the context of the text. So in context, the author just says they (we) believe that somehow God made all the things that we see out of the things we don't see.

 

[Jadis40]

Originally Posted by Aman777

I do not believe an ancient man could have possibly told us the Day of the Big Bang.
​

Les:>>I couldn't have put it better myself. Even if God had wanted to (and there is no reason why he should) he wouldn't have been able to give them a scientific theory of creation. At least not without first delivering a crash course in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.

Dear Les, You misunderstand me. God does tell us of the beginning of our Cosmos, or what scientists refer to as the Big Bang. It was on the 3rd Day, according to Genesis 2:4, the SAME Day the first earth was made. Genesis 1:9-10

The first firmament or heaven, as God called it, was made the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8 This confirms what today's physicists are trying to confirm and that is that we live in a Multiverse, and not just a Universe. NO ancient man could have possibly told us this. It's proof of God.

In Love,
Aman

The universe (the heavens) was here before the earth was. If what you're saying is true, then the earth would be older than the universe, but that's not what has been discovered. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the earth is a fraction of that at 4.5 billion years.

 

[Marvin Knox]

One of the big problems for literalists is that they've positioned evolution as diametrically opposed to christianity......................

So... my question is:

Are there others here that were able to reconcile the science with their conservative evangelical perspective or do I need to prepare myself for a major paradigm shift that might take me away from the church I call home?

Most evangelicals will not be able to reconcile the two views. I include myself in that group who find theistic evolution diametrically opposed to believing that the bible is the Word of God.

I'm sure you will find many who will join you in your departure from what God says. But many will find it as I do - exactly that - a departure from what God says .

Teach it to others in my view and you are in for a stricter judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

If you cause a little one to stumble along the way your judgment will result in even more loss IMO.

If you lack faith and just can't help but subscribe to theistic evolution - my advice would be to keep your mouth shut. That goes for on the internet as well as in Sunday School.

 

[Willtor]

Most evangelicals will not be able to reconcile the two views. I include myself in that group who find theistic evolution diametrically opposed to believing that the bible is the Word of God.

I'm sure you will find many who will join you in your departure from what God says. But many will find it as I do - exactly that - a departure from what God says .

Teach it to others in my view and you are in for a stricter judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

If you cause a little one to stumble along the way your judgment will result in even more loss IMO.

If you lack faith and just can't help but subscribe to theistic evolution - my advice would be to keep your mouth shut. That goes for on the internet as well as in Sunday School.

Does this generalize? If YECs turn away from Christianity with greater frequency than TEs, does YEC result in greater judgment?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Does this generalize? If YECs turn away from Christianity with greater frequency than TEs, does YEC result in greater judgment?

Concerning the events you refer to here - if it is indeed true what you say - then those who "turned away" because of YEC related teachings would incur the greater judgment (in general quantity) than those who came under the teaching of TEs.

But that's a judgment concerning apostasy or backsliding and not false teaching. It is a judgment of those falling under certain teachings and their reactions to those teachings. It, in itself, is not the judgement of the teachers.

Apostasy, backsliding, or whatever degree of departure you wish to talk about will receive appropriate judgment as God sees fit in the day of judgment (Judgment Seat of Christ?)

TE on the other hand is false teaching. Those who teach it and cause people to stumble will be judged for false teaching.

Whether they receive judgment at the Judgment seat of Christ or at the Great White Throne judgment would depend on the status of the particular teacher.

As an example I will offer this:

One preacher may preach about Hell and have most of his hearers "turn away". Another preacher may preach only a very uplifting message weekly and actually teach that there is no Hell. The first man may have a huge number of people who walked away from the church because of his unpopuloar message. The other may have many less people who walk away from his church.

The judgment will be harder on the later than the former. In fact the former may find himself getting great reward in the end while the other suffers eternal loss.

So it will likely be IMO with those who cave in to the temptation to teach TE vs. those who hold by faith to the less popular but more accurate scriptural teaching.

 

[Willtor]

Concerning the events you refer to here - if it is indeed true what you say - then those who "turned away" because of YEC related teachings would incur the greater judgment (in general quantity) than those who came under the teaching of TEs.

But that's a judgment concerning apostasy or backsliding and not false teaching. It is a judgment of those falling under certain teachings and their reactions to those teachings. It, in itself, is not the judgement of the teachers.

Apostasy, backsliding, or whatever degree of departure you wish to talk about will receive appropriate judgment as God sees fit in the day of judgment (Judgment Seat of Christ?)

TE on the other hand is false teaching. Those who teach it and cause people to stumble will be judged for false teaching.

Whether they receive judgment at the Judgment seat of Christ or at the Great White Throne judgment would depend on the status of the particular teacher.

As an example I will offer this:

One preacher may preach about Hell and have most of his hearers "turn away". Another preacher may preach only a very uplifting message weekly and actually teach that there is no Hell. The first man may have a huge number of people who walked away from the church because of his unpopuloar message. The other may have many less people who walk away from his church.

The judgment will be harder on the later than the former. In fact the former may find himself getting great reward in the end while the other suffers eternal loss.

So it will likely be IMO with those who cave in to the temptation to teach TE vs. those who hold by faith to the less popular but more accurate scriptural teaching.

That's not what I meant -- not whether the people who turned away were judged harshly -- rather, are the teachers judged more harshly, as was said of TE teachers? My guess is that more people turn away from (or avoid) the gospel because of YEC-ism, which is why I ask.