Evolution and God's Creation: where's the necessary conflict?

[MaxP]

It seems any conflicts between evolution and God come from people wanting there to be conflicts between evolution and God. Where does this absolutely essential conflict lie?

BTW, before any one brings it up, God is outside of time. A day could be any set measure of time, not just 24 hours.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I would wager that most of the bible is incomparable with modern science if you keep to a strict, 110% literal understanding of it. The flood is a big one that comes to mind.
A truly worldwide flood would have dire consequences on the evolution of every plant and animal on earth. Also the genetic bottleneck created by keeping only 2 individuals from an entire species would still be visible today. To keep to a literal translation of the flood story requires filling in the gaps and more extraordinary parts with "God waved his hand and it happened, stop asking question now".

That is just one right off the top of my head. The age of various people is another big one.

 

[Mallon]

Where does this absolutely essential conflict lie?

First principles of biblical interpretation. If we can't agree on how to interpret the Bible, then we certainly aren't going to agree on its application to the natural world God created.

 

[mark kennedy]

It seems any conflicts between evolution and God come from people wanting there to be conflicts between evolution and God. Where does this absolutely essential conflict lie?

BTW, before any one brings it up, God is outside of time. A day could be any set measure of time, not just 24 hours.

Honestly I don't think there is a conflict, I think the real conflict is in our culture and our worldviews. Personally I think the whole evolution/creation thing is just an intellectual jousting match. We just smash into one another to see how well our armor holds up. More then evolution I am fascinated by evolutionists, it is very interesting that they feel themselves so superior

 

[SWigton87]

Since God is timeless, there is nothing to suggest that He has His own kind of day. Day, would mean what it meant to the Jews. 24 Hours. One long day for Jack Bauer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does this absolutely essential conflict lie?

In the way the Documentation is interpreted.

According to Isaiah, Genesis 1 and 2 are to be interpreted literally.

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 45:18-19

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
​

Sorry I missed the bit where it says 'literal', perhaps you could highlight it?

The Isaiah passage reminds me of John 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. And Matt 7:7 Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Jesus spoke openly and not in secret, he was there to be found by those who seek him. But that doesn't mean he didn't speak in parables, or that everything he said was literal. It wasn't.

 

[mark kennedy]

In the way the Documentation is interpreted.

According to Isaiah, Genesis 1 and 2 are to be interpreted literally.

Not to mention Romans 5 and Luke's geneology, what else could Luke calling Adam the son of God mean?

 

[Assyrian]

In the way the Documentation is interpreted.
According to Isaiah, Genesis 1 and 2 are to be interpreted literally.

Not to mention Romans 5

Except in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us about his figurative interpretation of Adam. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

and Luke's geneology, what else could Luke calling Adam the son of God mean?

I though it was just the Mormons who interpreted that literally?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us about his figurative interpretation of Adam.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Do you know the difference between typology and figurative speech, Assyrian?

Was the Tabernacle just a figure of speech as well?

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present...

 

[Markus6]

Do you know the difference between typology and figurative speech, Assyrian?

Was the Tabernacle just a figure of speech as well?

As an evolutionist and believer in a non literal Adam - I think you just got owned by AV Assyrian.

 

[BobW188]

It seems to me the conflict has two sides.

On the Judeo-Christian side, those who believe that the Genesis accounts must be taken literally.
On the scientistic side, (as opposed to "scientific side"), those who conclude that, because science deals only with that which can be actually or potentially obseved, measured, and thus at least partially predicted and controlled, (let's call this "nature"'), there must not be any realm of supernature.
By the way, the Hebrew for "day" is "yom"; and just as we can speak in English of "The Day of the Steam Locomotive" it can be used to mean a sunset-to-sunset interval or an open-ended era.

 

[Markus6]

It seems to me the conflict has two sides.

On the Judeo-Christian side, those who believe that the Genesis accounts must be taken literally.
On the scientistic side, (as opposed to "scientific side"), those who conclude that, because science deals only with that which can be actually or potentially obseved, measured, and thus at least partially predicted and controlled, (let's call this "nature"'), there must not be any realm of supernature.
By the way, the Hebrew for "day" is "yom"; and just as we can speak in English of "The Day of the Steam Locomotive" it can be used to mean a sunset-to-sunset interval or an open-ended era.

Those are the two extremes. There are a lot of positions in between. There are Judeo-Christians who interpret Genesis non-literally and scientists who do believe in the supernatural.

 

[mark kennedy]

Those are the two extremes. There are a lot of positions in between. There are Judeo-Christians who interpret Genesis non-literally and scientists who do believe in the supernatural.

Sorry but there is only one, take the Scriptures at their word or be a part of the mob that argues otherwise.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you know the difference between typology and figurative speech, Assyrian?

Of course he does, he just wont admit it.

Was the Tabernacle just a figure of speech as well?

Or the incarnation would be my question

 

[Assyrian]

Do you know the difference between typology and figurative speech, Assyrian?

Typology, isn't that what you call it when literalists use allegory?
But here is a question for you AV, which does your AV1611 say the word is, type or figure?

I think there are two issues with typology. The first is the most important, it tells us Paul's interpretation of Adam if figurative. The meaning he was drawing our of the Genesis story is not a literal interpretation discussing the historical relationship between Adam's sin and Christ but a figurative interpretation using the story of Adam as an illustration of Christ's redemption.

The second issue is whether Paul's figurative interpretation was taken from a historical figure, or one that was symbolic from the start. To a great extent it does not matter. Paul's figurative interpretation remains the same whether he thought Adam was a literal historical person or not, and whether I think so or not.

Can we take Paul's use of the word 'figure' and say that (a) Paul thought Adam was historical or (b) Romans 5:14 actually says Adam was historical? The difficulty comes with the idea of typology which is a method of interpretation which takes a historical character or event in scripture (or at least one that people assume is historical) and gives it a further figurative prophetic meaning as well. Because Paul used the word tupos or 'type' to describe Adam, people assume Paul is using what later became known as typology and that he was supplying a figurative meaning to a historical figure. The problem is that typology, with all its rules, is a later development. It is based on types mentioned in scripture, but that does not mean when writers in scripture used the word tupos they were following the later rules of typology. Before all the traditions of typology came in, the word tupos was used much more freely. In Philo, the garden of Eden is both allegorical and a type. In the Shepherd of Hermas, his vision of a beast is described as a type of the tribulation. His parable of the two trees is also called a type. Clearly you could have historical characters that are interpreted as types, but figurative pictures and parables could be types too.

Calling Adam a type or figure of Christ, does not tell us if Adam was literal or not, it just tells us that Paul's interpetation was figurative.

Was the Tabernacle just a figure of speech as well?
Originally Posted by Hebrews 9:8-9a

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present...
​

As I said, the historical can be interpreted figuratively, that doesn't mean figurative imagery can't be interpreted figuratively too, or that every figurative image has to be literal.

Incidentally, the word you have highlighted in Heb 9:9 is parabolē a parable. As Green's Literal Version puts it Heb 9:9 which was a parable for the present time, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, but as regards conscience, not being able to perfect the one serving. It can be easy to miss the point if you get caught up in literalism, even with historical events like the tabernacle, its real meaning can be as a parable.

The letter of Hebrews does use the word tupos as well, although it seems to reverse to usual typological meaning. In Hebrews the type tupos, is the original Moses saw in Heaven not the tabernacle. Heb 8:5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern [tupos] that was shown you on the mountain." Yet even the tupos Moses saw and copied faithfully was not the reality that was to come, the reality we have in the cross. After all Moses' copy was a tabernacle not a cross. The tupos Moses saw in heaven was a figurative vision of a much greater reality.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry but there is only one, take the Scriptures at their word or be a part of the mob that argues otherwise.

Wasn't it the mob who took Jesus at his word when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" ... 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" ... 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

Was the Tabernacle just a figure of speech as well?

Or the incarnation would be my question

Taking everything literally is just as big a mistake as taking everything figuratively. Of course I don't know anybody who does take everything figuratively, it is just a bogey man creationists bring up to try to justify their unscriptural literalism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you know the difference between typology and figurative speech, Assyrian?

Was the Tabernacle just a figure of speech as well?[

I have pointed out to him a dozen times at least that just because Adam prefigures Christ it does not mean Adam is figurative. Paul was clearly a Creationist and regarded Adam and Eve as our first parents. I did this exposition of Romans for shernen in our formal debate,

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

I think I prefer the clear meaning of Paul's letters to some convoluted Darwinian revision of the text. Peter, who by the way believed in a global flood, had this to say about how some people treat Paul's wittings:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)​

 

[AV1611VET]

Typology, isn't that what you call it when literalists use allegory?

All I got from this entire post, Assyrian, is that determining whether Genesis is literal or figurative is simply a matter of choice.

Your reference to Philo [of Alexandria] and the Apocrypha are also noted.

From Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost:

The prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation. Horne presents it thus:

The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of the captivity, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and his apostles.
Although the Sanhedrin and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament, yet they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation; even Josephus has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt began in the first century, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament allegorically. Philo of Alexandria was distinguished among those Jews who practised this method; and he defends it as something new and before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews. Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation in which he was compelled to comply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation; for this method did not prevail at the time among the Jews, certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus taught.​

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Taking everything literally is just as big a mistake as taking everything figuratively.

But knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity.