Evolution and Genesis account of creation

[samalematina]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

 

[Barney2.0]

Some stuff in Genesis is metaphoric because it’s obvious that it’s written metaphorically, such as God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh. However there are other things which are in Genesis that are literal, because they’re obviously literal. Technically you can’t deny the existence of Adam an Eve existed in the context of Biblical mythology as literal people, whether as a Christian or even as a simple reader because it’s obviously meant to be taken and interpreted literally.

 

[miamited]

Hi samalematina,

Despite the best efforts of the world, you can't reconcile evolution with the Scriptures. You're correct that many try. Even many 'good christians', but it can't really be done. The truth, as I have come to understand God's Scriptures in His creating this realm, is that God created this realm of life for a purpose. He created all that exists in this realm out of nothing. He created it all miraculously and relatively quickly, for the express purpose of providing a place where a special creature of His creating, man, could live. He created this realm of existence in the account we find in Genesis and He will bring it all to a close in the account that we find in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

It is a created realm in which we live and it was created by the power and authority of God for the purpose of God.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi al,

You responded to the OP:

Technically you can’t deny the existence of Adam an Eve existed in the context of Biblical mythology as literal people,

Could you explain what that means? Did Adam really live and breathe upon the earth or didn't he? Same for Eve. Did Cain and Abel really exist as two sons of Adam and Eve or didn't they? Was Seth born as a real living breathing human being?

Just curious what it means to say that we can't deny the existence of Adam (and) Eve existed (?) in the context of biblical mythology (?) as 'literal' people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Barney2.0]

Hi al,

You responded to the OP:


Could you explain what that means? Did Adam really live and breathe upon the earth or didn't he? Same for Eve. Did Cain and Abel really exist as two sons of Adam and Eve or didn't they? Was Seth born as a real living breathing human being?

Just curious what it means to say that we can't deny the existence of Adam (and) Eve existed (?) in the context of biblical mythology (?) as 'literal' people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I’m just saying Biblical theology teaches them to be literal people, not metaphorical people.

 

[Brightmoon]

My church sees that genesis story as allegorical and it also accepts mainstream science. I accepted that humans were a type of animal long before I understood my church’s teachings on Genesis( I was 8 and I understood that when my third grade teacher told us that humans were vertebrates and mammals). I also had a encyclopedia Brittanica in the house and understood the common ancestry of vertebrates by the time I was 10. The understanding that plants, fungi and,ugh, arthropods and bacteria also shared that common ancestry came a few years later. Honestly I never thought about the implications for the Adam and Eve story until much much later when a fundie friend pointed it out . My reaction to that was a shrug as the sciences had had the evidence for common descent for over a 100 years by then

 

[eleos1954]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

well ... you kind of answered your own question.

If one dismisses Adam & Eve then there is no Jesus, as all of mankinds' lineage begins with Adam and Eve and then would make the entire word of God nothing more than fiction.

So Genesis being an allegory or parable? No

Romans 5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:21-23
For since by a man (Adam) came death , by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,

Romans 5:16

The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned (Adam); for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

Romans 5:18-19
So then as through one transgression (Adam) there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's (Adam) disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:48-49
As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy (Adam), we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

2 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

God Bless.

 

[inquiring mind]

This is a topic that draws many opinions, but in the end that’s all we ever have as far as our reasoning goes. Evolutionists have it all figured out if you want to accept their other than biblical theory of how man and everything else came about, as well as their macro evolution explanations that are full of gaps. But, just like with the Genesis account it has to be accepted on faith because they have no proof, only tantalizing bits and pieces of so-called evidence that they latch onto to further promote their reasoning.

On the other hand, the Bible just says God did it, and we’re never going to know how because we have no concept of His infinite knowledge, time-frames or anything else other than the plan of salvation the Bible lays out for us. So, the only question we can answer is ‘where does our faith lie?’ Did everything we know just come about and evolve on its own (without a Creator), or did God create everything using a process(s) we can speculate on, but will never fully understand?

 

[bcbsr]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

I would say that I take the Bible to be literally true and that it is an accurate representation of history and truth in general, when you take into account the language being used. The problem is that "language itself is essentially a portrayal of reality. But the portrayal is never a complete picture of reality." (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, pg 685.)

In the case of the 7 days of creation. I take the "days" to be literally 24 hour days. But I take them as being "Revelatory" (or "prophetic"). Genesis 1 is a vision. And so it must be, as there was no human around to actually see what was happening. Furthermore, God is being spoken of as in the third person (he) as opposed to the first person (I), as if someone were viewing the events happening and recording them, as opposed to God Himself directly telling us what was happening.

For example, Moses spent many days on Mount Sinai when God gave him the Law. What if God took a week during that time and revealed to him this vision. On the first day (Sunday), God shows Moses Gen 1:1-5. Then Moses goes to sleep and wakes up the next day (Monday) and God shows him Gen 1:6-8. Etc. If this is the case, that the creation days were a vision, then what the vision meant is subject to interpretation. Not to say that it could mean anything, for there is only one correct interpretation. But getting at it may not be all that obvious.

For myself, I think the categorical interpretation best fits what I think God was trying to say.

Categorical Interpretation:

Have you ever noticed the pattern of the 7 days

The 7 Days of Creation
The earth was:
Without Form and Void
Environment Inhabitants
1. Light 4. Sun, moon & stars
2. Sky & Ocean 5. Birds & Fish
3. Land 6. land Animals & Man
7. Rest

It seems to me that the main point is that God is the creator of all things in particular. This, as opposed to the many polytheistic religions at the time where each one of these categories would be created by a separate god. And the 7th day shows that God isn't bound to creating things. He isn't simply a creation machine, but can sit back and enjoy His creation, which attributes to Him, human characteristics - He isn't impersonal.

 

[miamited]

I’m just saying Biblical theology teaches them to be literal people, not metaphorical people.

Hi al,

Thanks for you response. So, is that where the account changes from metaphorical to literal? On the sixth day God created Adam and Eve? Or, is it your belief, and I'm really not asking what 'biblical theology' teaches, but whether or not you believe something to be the truth or not, that Adam and Eve did exist, but were created from a previous male/female sexual union? Or, did Adam and Eve exist and were created from the union of two animals that had not yet reached 'humanness' but Adam and Eve were the first generation of evolutionary progression from such union to be human?

What do you believe?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Second Coming]

Genesis is literal.

 

[Barney2.0]

Hi al,

Thanks for you response. So, is that where the account changes from metaphorical to literal? On the sixth day God created Adam and Eve? Or, is it your belief, and I'm really not asking what 'biblical theology' teaches, but whether or not you believe something to be the truth or not, that Adam and Eve did exist, but were created from a previous male/female sexual union? Or, did Adam and Eve exist and were created from the union of two animals that had not yet reached 'humanness' but Adam and Eve were the first generation of evolutionary progression from such union to be human?

What do you believe?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

They were real people and the first people created by God.

 

[samalematina]

wow thats an amazing amount of different belief's, interpretation, acceptance of literal vs allegorical Genesis account.
And everyone has a Bible verse to backup their view on how they want to interpret it.

I'm still reading and investigating this and will make up my mind one way or another.
On the one hand evolution is at this stage undeniable fact. It is testable and used to model and predict gene behavior and improve treatments.
On the other hand Genesis is open to interpretations (as I've seen in this forum alone). It will come down to 'Faith' alone on this matter.
At this stage I will keep science and bible separate. One is used to understand the world around us and use that knowledge for betterment of humanity while the other is to feed the soul, spiritual growth and life after.

 

[trophy33]

wow thats an amazing amount of different belief's, interpretation, acceptance of literal vs allegorical Genesis account.
And everyone has a Bible verse to backup their view on how they want to interpret it.

I'm still reading and investigating this and will make up my mind one way or another.
On the one hand evolution is at this stage undeniable fact. It is testable and used to model and predict gene behavior and improve treatments.
On the other hand Genesis is open to interpretations (as I've seen in this forum alone). It will come down to 'Faith' alone on this matter.
At this stage I will keep science and bible separate. One is used to understand the world around us and use that knowledge for betterment of humanity while the other is to feed the soul, spiritual growth and life after.

Hi, there are several main views on Genesis and endless number of various combinations.
Comparing Interpretations of Genesis 1

To your question, if Adam evolved, there could be the garden of Eden, there is no logical impossibility in it.

 

[JackRT]

I think that the truest words in Genesis are the first four --- "in the beginning God ...."

 

[Job 33:6]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

Genesis is really mankind's attempt to understand and explain the painful world we live in, before anyone really understood when or how pain and death came to be and before anyone really understood how mankind came to be through evolution.

Death and pain are things that predate mankind (T Rex was not a vegetarian).

With that, the stage was set for Jesus to provide us with salvation from the painful and broken world in which we live, before we even existed as people with awareness of the broken world. Regardless of when death and pain came to be, it is something that we seek salvation from.

I typically view Adam and Eve as, people who were imagined to be the first of all of mankind. There has to have been a first "person" or people at some point in time. So Adam and Eve are thought to be those people. Or more specifically, the first man and first woman.

And as Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after hypothetically eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, mankind became aware of it's broken state and sought salvation.

Mankind becoming aware of our broken state does not run contrary to evolution , as people gained awareness as a product of it. Perhaps even with use of nutrients from fruits such as apples.


Now obviously we cannot believe that mankind evolved and were also formed from clay and rib bones. But we should also understand that mankind 2000 years ago was not aware of our biological makup and evolution and would never have considered the idea, let alone would it be carried through time in scripture.

And Scripture is inspired by God. But it is our hands which have written scripture. And if 2000 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge to write about complicated processes such as evolution, then we shouldn't expect to see such information in scripture today. And when we read scripture, we have to read it with the understanding that it is ancient, and people back then really were not familiar with things like microbiology, paleontology and other forms of science such as modern astrophysics.

And someone might say, well if Jesus came to save us from a world that is broken, if pain and suffering predated us, then we didn't break it. And if we didn't break it, does that mean that God created a broken world?

And really this turns more into a philosophic discussion on the problem of evil, and really it doesn't have anything to do with evolution at all.

 

[NobleMouse]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

Thanks for posting. Just stepping outside of all the noise and the back-and-forth on this topic across the multiple sub-forums on this topic, is anyone stopping to think about how very vastly different we as humans are from every other form of life God created? Jesus said we were created male and female from the beginning (Matthew 19:4) and in fact, Adam and Eve were created on day 6 as per Genesis. We are told we are a unique creation and were to have dominion over the earth. Sin entered in and creation became corrupt.

If all of this is figurative, one big run-on allegory, then there is really nothing to be assured of in regard to what we're told about heaven either. Why is God going to create a new heaven and a new earth? Genesis would say it is because the initial creation became corrupt by sin, the sin Adam and Eve committed. That never really happened though, Stan wasn't there, there was no tree with the knowledge of good and evil. What will we be in heaven? We assume we'll be human (like Christ), but maybe not, maybe we'll be a lesser marsupial or we'll have evolved to be something more than human, more than what Christ even was--who knows (despite the many passages in Revelation where John for example saw saints who wore white robes, called out in voices... all characteristics of being "human"). What about allegorical Adam and figurative Eve's parents? Were they human? At what point were they human? Had a soul? According to evolution, all life arose from a universal common ancestor so with this there absolutely had to be a parent or parents that were not actually human, or even primates, or even mammals, or even multi-cellular for that matter.

When we start dismantling an allegorizing the foundation of scripture, we really have nothing else to stand upon with any degree of confidence. Evolution is nothing more than a paradigm, a way of thinking, a mental framework, a presuppositional view by which to interpret evidence, but the evidence does nothing to assert that evolution has ever happened and evolution itself from a LUCA has never been observed and is left to being nothing more than conjecture.

 

[Brightmoon]

( snip) Evolution is nothing more than a paradigm, a way of thinking, a mental framework, a presuppositional view by which to interpret evidence, but the evidence does nothing to assert that evolution has ever happened and evolution itself from a LUCA has never been observed and is left to being nothing more than conjecture.

. You’ve just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about evolutionary processes. Instead of this silly strawman creationist version why don’t you find out what scientists really say about evolution and/or common descent and the evidence for it.

Creationists have their own silly version of evolution and real scientists don’t use that creationist version.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just want to say that, we are adults here. We can put on our big boy pants and still be Christians while simultaneously recognizing that women aren't made of rib bones and snakes dont speak human language.

We shouldn't trap ourselves in strange 6000 year old world's with vegetarian tyranasaurs on a boat full of animals for a year, just because its difficult to not always have clear answers about existance.

And its ok to acknowledge that there are some things that we don't really understand about the universe and our place in it. It's ok to say "I don't know".

And it's ok if...our understanding of the afterlife isn't served to us on a silver platter. It's ok that where we go when we die, isn't crystal clear.

It's going to be ok because it's all in God's hands.

 

[SkyWriting]

First off, I'm glad I found a forum specifically dedicated to this topic. Its something that I've been wanting to discuss.

How do you line up Evolution with what the Bible says in Genesis about creation.
Some Christians say Genesis should not be read literally or that its like a parable or allegory. And the language used in Genesis is written in a poetic way, similar to Psalms.

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden or where did original sin occur and hence the remainder of Bible story does not line up or Jesus being crucified for mankind's 'original sin'

Interested to hear you ideas.

The Creation account likely covers the Garden that man was banned from, and we are not in the Garden anymore.

God commanded the Earth to provide all living animals.