Does the Bible address the concept of Evolution?

[Linux98]

In an earlier thread Beastt made the observation that Christians who believe in evolution will alter what the Bible actually says to conform it to their ideas about science and evolution. The specific quote was:

“Of course evolution is so compelling that many Christians have chosen to alter what the Bible actually says to try to make it fit within a theory which offers a far more compelling mechanism than God breathing life into dust and thusly forming a fully-formed human.”
​

On the other hand, grmorton has a web site (I lost the address) that has an exposition of a verse that may indicate that God used evolution as a mechanism to create the diversity of life. However, this is the only verse I have been made aware of that may indicate God used evolution as a mechanism. From my experience, difficult biblical concepts are understood by interpreting them in light of the rest of scripture. Consequently, if God tried to convey the concept of creation through evolution I would expect him to have given more than just one verse about it. On the other hand, the Bible is replete with phrases such as “God created” and “God formed” and “He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make.”

If God created life through the mechanism of evolution then what verses support this idea? How do you draw the concept of evolution from the Bible rather than from external sources such as the physical evidence of evolution? Or, do external sources of information hold priority in your interpretation of scripture?

 

[notto]

If God created life through the mechanism of evolution then what verses support this idea? How do you draw the concept of evolution from the Bible rather than from external sources such as the physical evidence of evolution? Or, do external sources of information create the priority in your interpretation of scripture?

If you count the actual creation as an 'external source', then I would guess that would be one of the big sources that would influence those that accept evolution and are Christian. It was early Christians and ministers who went out looking at the creation to study it to learn about it that came to the conclusion that the earth is old and was not specially created as is. Later on, it would be a Christian who uncovered the creative power of evolution.

If what we actually find in the creation conflicts with our interpratation of the bible, which do you think is correct, the actual physical work of God or our interpretation of the Bible?

 

[nvxplorer]

It would help if you could post the applicable verse. When you say you lost the address, are you saying you don't remember the verse?

 

[Linux98]

It would help if you could post the applicable verse. When you say you lost the address, are you saying you don't remember the verse?

Maybe grmorton will come along and place the link to his site. However, you can use any verse you are aware of that indicates evolution as the chosen mechanism of God.

 

[nvxplorer]

Maybe grmorton will come along and place the link to his site. However, you can use any verse you are aware of that indicates evolution as the chosen mechanism of God.

I'm not aware of any, and that is why I asked. I can't comment without knowing the passages in question. I have a searchable Bible program, but I can't imagine what terms to use. If the word evolution appears in the Bible, I doubt it applies to biology.

(edit: the term evolution does not appear in my version)

 

[Linux98]

If what we actually find in the creation conflicts with our interpratation of the bible, which do you think is correct, the actual physical work of God or our interpretation of the Bible?

I would say there is only one accurate interpretation of the Bible. And there is only one accurate interpretation of nature. If the one accurate interpretation of the Bible contradicts the one accurate interpretation of nature then the Bible would be false. That would mean the the Bible was written by men and made up to describe their concept of God. And that would mean that the Bible is inaccurate.

 

[Linux98]

(edit: the term evolution does not appear in my version)

Not so much the term as the concept.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

glenn morton's website is at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

 

[Linux98]

glenn morton's website is at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Thank you, here is the article that I forgot.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htm

 

[grmorton]

Maybe grmorton will come along and place the link to his site. However, you can use any verse you are aware of that indicates evolution as the chosen mechanism of God.

Sorry to be so slow, I have been dealing with some family crises which seem to have now resolved themselves and I have been doing some interesting research in relativity.

Yes, the Bible Does teach evolution in my opinion. To me, it is the anti-evolutionists who are ignoring what the Bible says:

This is from http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gen1-11.htm



Why do I believe that the Bible teaches evolution? The issue to me is grammatical, not the Hebrew. The issue lies in what is the subject (the active agent) in the sentence.

Lets start with Genesis 1:11


And GodH430 saidH559, Let the earthH776 bringH1876 forthH1876 grassH1877, the herbH6212 yieldingH2232 seedH2233, and the fruitH6529 treeH6086 yieldingH6213 fruitH6529 after his kindH4327, whoseH834 seedH2233 is in itself, upon the earthH776: and it was soH3651.

In Hebrew this is Elohim amar erets, dasha dasha deshe eseb zara zera periy ets asa periy miyn asher zera erets ken

Elohim amar is God said. Well what did God say? He said,


God said:

“earth bring bring grass herb yielding seed fruit tree yielding fruit kind that seed earth thus so.”

That is a brute non-punctuated translation. What is the subject of the sentence God spoke? Why it is earth! The subject of the sentence is erets/earth. So what does it mean that ‘erets’ (the earth) is the subject of a sentence. Well according to an internet definition of subject it says

"The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something. You can find the subject of a sentence if you can find the verb. Ask the question, "Who or what 'verbs' or 'verbed'?" and the answer to that question is the subject." webster.commnet.edu/grammar/subjects.htm

Regardless of whether a language is head first or head-last, regardless of whether it has prepositions or postpositions, the rules of what a subject does is the same. It is the actor or the acted upon. In this case it is the actor.

OK, where is the verb of the sentence God spoke? It is bring bring. Dasha dasha. It is apparently used only 2 times in Scripture—here and in Joel 2:22.

What does Brown-Driver-Briggs say this means?

Quote Taken From:
Brown-Driver-Briggs

"to sprout, shoot, grow green
1a) (Qal) to sprout, grow green
1b) (Hiphil) to cause to sprout, cause to shoot forth"
Copyright respective of citation source.


In Joel 2:22 it is Qal.

Regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil in Genesis 1:11, secondary causation is not ruled out. If it is Hiphil, then it means ‘earth cause to sprout,” which clearly indicates secondary causation. If it is Qal imperative, then it means, Earth sprout vegetation, which also can be interpreted as secondary causation.

So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth. I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.


I think that is why the Jewish Rabbi (and surely he knew a bit of Hebrew grammar) , Nachmanides said,

“It is possible that the name’ earth’ mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foundations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated.” Ramban, (Nachmanides), “Commentary on the Torah,” Transl. By Rabbi Dr. Charles R. Chavel, (New York: Shiloh Publishing House, 1971), p. 40

Now that we know what the verb is, what is the subject. What is it that is bringing forth? Is it God directly? Not according to the Bible. It is the ‘erets’ which is actually doing the bringing forth regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil. So what does erets mean? According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, it means:

Quote Taken From:
Brown-Driver-Briggs

1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan

Copyright respective of citation source.


In what sense should we understand the word ‘erets’? I think we can rule out 1d and 1e since that wouldn’t make much sense in the context. Given that we are talking about the origin of the earth, the logical interpretation is 1a1 or 1a2 is probably the most likely interpretation.

This verse also illustrates the fact that there is NO verse in Scripture which says, Plants yield plants after their kind. By that I mean where plants is both the subject and object of the sentence. Grammar requires that if plants are incapable of evolution, that there should be a statement in which plants are said to reproduce plants after their kind. What the Bible actually says is:

‘earth bring forth... fruit tree yielding fruit kind’

The tree yields fruit kind. What kind of tree is it? A fruit tree. Well, fruit trees bring forth fruit kind today but that is not the same as saying ‘fruit trees reproduce fruit trees after
their kind.’

What I think we have in the YEC interpretation of Scripture is lack of attention to the details of what is subject, what is object, what a subject does and what is not said, i.e. animals reproduce animals after their kind.

Like with the geological pictures, if the YECs could point me to one verse in which it says "animals reproduce animals after their kind" or "plants reproduce animals after their kind" one would have to give up the idea that the Bible possibly teaches evolution. But so far no one has done that. The above verse doesn't have plants as the subject of the phrase and so I don't think there is anything in scripture to rule out the concept of speciation or evolution.

Thus, I will stand by my interpretation. And the fact that dasha is hiphil in Genesis 1:11 and Qal in Joel 2:22 re enforces my case.

 

[TheBear]

Thanks, Glenn.

 

[Linux98]

Sorry to be so slow, I have been dealing with some family crises which seem to have now resolved themselves and I have been doing some interesting research in relativity.

Thanks. I hope everything is alright with your family.

 

[GodsSamus]

In an earlier thread Beastt made the observation that Christians who believe in evolution will alter what the Bible actually says to conform it to their ideas about science and evolution. The specific quote was:

“Of course evolution is so compelling that many Christians have chosen to alter what the Bible actually says to try to make it fit within a theory which offers a far more compelling mechanism than God breathing life into dust and thusly forming a fully-formed human.”


​

On the other hand, grmorton has a web site (I lost the address) that has an exposition of a verse that may indicate that God used evolution as a mechanism to create the diversity of life. However, this is the only verse I have been made aware of that may indicate God used evolution as a mechanism. From my experience, difficult biblical concepts are understood by interpreting them in light of the rest of scripture. Consequently, if God tried to convey the concept of creation through evolution I would expect him to have given more than just one verse about it. On the other hand, the Bible is replete with phrases such as “God created” and “God formed” and “He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make.”


If God created life through the mechanism of evolution then what verses support this idea? How do you draw the concept of evolution from the Bible rather than from external sources such as the physical evidence of evolution? Or, do external sources of information hold priority in your interpretation of scripture?

Jesus: Have you not read that He who made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female?

 

[spanner365]

[delurk] I prefer the creation story of some indian tribes in southern California where humans were descended from animals (coyotes). [/lurk]

 

[Freodin]

Jesus: Have you not read that He who made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female?

At the beginning? Whoops, Jesus must have gotten something wrong then, because "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Nitpicking? Yes!

But all I want to show here is the invalidity of building a philosophical system on a few words.

Language is necessarily an imperfect tool to represent reality. It is not precise, and the smaller the statement, the less precise it gets.

Thus all attempts to explain reality by simply stating "it is said/written" cannot work - it has to be explained and supported by observational means.

 

[grmorton]

Jesus: Have you not read that He who made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female?

At the beginning of what? The earth? The univese? humankind? Jesus doesn't actually say what beginning. This is important because if you inerprete Genesis like I do, Genesis 1 is not the actual creaton, it is the planning of the universe. Genesis 2 is billions of years after Genesis 1. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm

 

[Schroeder]

At the beginning of what? The earth? The univese? humankind? Jesus doesn't actually say what beginning. This is important because if you inerprete Genesis like I do, Genesis 1 is not the actual creaton, it is the planning of the universe. Genesis 2 is billions of years after Genesis 1. see

At least you say it is your interpretation, because it is wrong. it is based on your field study which could be wrong interpretation as well or the best you can do based on the knowledge we know of the earth and such. the idea that you think your absolutly right is your problem, the need to understand it all is a big problem for most. all we understand or think we know does not have to fit into scripture. What we know may be wrong, or we just dont know period. Is that so hard to swallow

 

[Schroeder]

At the beginning? Whoops, Jesus must have gotten something wrong then, because "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Nitpicking? Yes!

But all I want to show here is the invalidity of building a philosophical system on a few words.

Language is necessarily an imperfect tool to represent reality. It is not precise, and the smaller the statement, the less precise it gets.

Thus all attempts to explain reality by simply stating "it is said/written" cannot work - it has to be explained and supported by observational means.

So all of Glenns post is wrong as well since he does the exact same thing makes the bilbe teach evolution based on twoo words or one word used twice together. Evolutionist do the same thing. take one thing and add to it, but if your break it down its the same things over and over, a lot of info saying the same thing, theres a lot of words involved so it looks overwhellmingly correct. YET it is all about simple small evolution within th same species. nothing changing into anything else completly different. Other wise we are all the same animal just a different type of it.

 

[Freodin]

So all of Glenns post is wrong as well since he does the exact same thing makes the bilbe teach evolution based on twoo words or one word used twice together. Evolutionist do the same thing. take one thing and add to it, but if your break it down its the same things over and over, a lot of info saying the same thing, theres a lot of words involved so it looks overwhellmingly correct. YET it is all about simple small evolution within th same species. nothing changing into anything else completly different. Other wise we are all the same animal just a different type of it.

Surprise! I do indeed think that Glenn´s interpretation is incorrect. I do indeed think that he shoehorns Genesis into something that it is not meant to be.

But he does so by the correct means. Words are weak arguments against observations - and he bases his interpretation on observations, not on the words. He may be wrong - but then at least it is a honest mistake.

Ignoring observations in favour of words can only lead to a dogmatic ignorance of reality - and so I can understand what your little rant against Evolution means: the preference of idea over fact.

 

[Carico]

Boy, people here sure do focus on what's unimportant than on what's important! Jesus meant when man first appeared on the earth. The bible explains how we were created and who created us. The "we" referred to in Genesis is God and Christ. And the OT was written long before men ever met Christ!