Evolution & Biblical Inerrancy

[Humble_Disciple]

There is no conflict between theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy if the first few chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be interpreted in a literal fashion:

Augustine of Hippo warned against interpreting Genesis in such a way that contradicts the clear facts of science, as well as counting one's interpretation of Genesis as essential for salvation:

With the Scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the Scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

Whether the first few chapters of Genesis are meant to be taken literally or parabolically, we can learn from it that God created the world and everything in it, and that spiritual death entered the world through man's rebellion against God's law.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no conflict between theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy if the first few chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be interpreted in a literal fashion:

Very nice to meet you, HD!

Do you want me to critique this, or is this just something you're sharing your faith with us about?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Very nice to meet you, HD!

Do you want me to critique this, or is this just something you're sharing your faith with us about?

You are welcome to critique it.

 

[HTacianas]

There is no conflict between theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy if the first few chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be interpreted in a literal fashion:

Circa 220 AD, Origen wrote that based on the wording of Genesis itself, there could not be a literal six day creation. Since his time there has been no defined teaching on the creation or age of the universe within Christianity.

 

[Oneiric1975]

You are welcome to critique it.

This will, no doubt, be fun.

Personally I LOVE the idea of Genesis being metaphor. In fact it is 1000X more beautiful as an allegory than read as a literal recounting. Reading it literally kind of cheapens it (IMHO).

The thing I love most about the Garden of Eden and the "Fall of Man" is that it is a PERFECT allegory for becoming an adult.

As a child one is without any sort of responsibility for doing right or wrong until they learn the difference between right and wrong. Adam and Eve ate NOT of the fruit of the tree of knowledge but the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Thereafter they are responsible for their actions. They, like all of us who grow up, were cast out of the original paradise of childhood where we weren't responsible for making our decisions based on what is right or wrong.

That story really moves me.

The idea of a literal talking snake with legs tempting Eve to eat a fruit just sounds silly. But an allegory for growing into knowledge of right and wrong and being responsible for it sounds real.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are welcome to critique it.

Thank you.

First of all, Shapiro seems to not understand why there can't be a literal 24-hour period if there is no sun. You don't need a sun. You don't even need light. All you need is one single rotation of the Earth on its axis (rotating at its current speed of circa 1000 mph), and there's your 24-hour period.

Second of all, he says that there are two Genesis accounts. The reason for that is that the two separate accounts compliment each other and make what is called a frame story, which is a story within a story.

Third, and this is being somewhat nitpicky, he mentions Adam and Eve eating "an apple." A rookie remark that, to me, shows he's somewhat shallow in his thinking.

Fourth, your clip ends with he comparing faith with science as regards Genesis 1 and 2, and Genesis 1 and 2 have nothing to do with science, since it was a series of one miracle after another that raised the amount of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level over a six-day period.

That's my take on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Circa 220 AD, Origen wrote that based on the wording of Genesis itself, there could not be a literal six day creation. Since his time there has been no defined teaching on the creation or age of the universe within Christianity.

Peter S. Ruckman referred to Origen as a "walking, barefoot, b_____d."

 

[AV1611VET]

That story really moves me.

Then you'll probably love The Cat in the Hat, by Dr. Seuss.

Here are its philosophical teachings:

The Cat in the Hat - Teaching Children Philosophy - Prindle Institute

 

[Humble_Disciple]

First of all, Shapiro seems to not understand why there can't be a literal 24-hour period if there is no sun. You don't need a sun. You don't even need light. All you need is one single rotation of the Earth on its axis (rotating at its current speed of circa 1000 mph), and there's your 24-hour period.

Why are we required to believe that God created plants before creating the sun?

Second of all, he says that there are two Genesis accounts. The reason for that is that the two separate accounts compliment each other and make what is called a frame story, which is a story within a story.

Don't they contradict each other on the order of events described?

Third, and this is being somewhat nitpicky, he mentions Adam and Eve eating "an apple." A rookie remark that, to me, shows he's somewhat shallow in his thinking.

Since Ben Shapiro knows Biblical Hebrew, I believe he was speaking colloquially in referring to the apple.

Fourth, your clip ends with he comparing faith with science as regards Genesis 1 and 2, and Genesis 1 and 2 have nothing to do with science, since it was a series of one miracle after another that raised the amount of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level over a six-day period.

It's a matter of what's better supported by the scientific evidence, evolution or a six-day creation. If a passage of scripture contradicts what God has revealed in nature, then that passage is likely not meant to be interpreted literally.

We know that Jesus often taught in parables, and that the Book of Revelation is largely allegorical. Why can't the same be said for the first few chapters of Genesis?

 

[Navair2]

There is no conflict between theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy if the first few chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be interpreted in a literal fashion:

There is to me.

That said, I'm always fascinated, in a very sad way, by the idea that God's word is composed of differing "interpretations", or that it should be "interpreted" and not believed to be true by those who profess Christ.

 

[HTacianas]

Peter S. Ruckman referred to Origen as a "walking, barefoot, b_____d."

Funny. That's how I feel about Peter S. Ruckman.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

There is to me.

That said, I'm always fascinated, in a very sad way, by the idea that God's word is composed of differing "interpretations", or that it should be "interpreted" and not believed to be true.

We know that Jesus often taught in parables, and that the Book of Revelation is largely allegorical. Why can't the same be said for the first few chapters of Genesis?

Taking the first few chapters of Genesis as literal history is itself an interpretation.

 

[Navair2]

Taking the first few chapters of Genesis as literal history is itself an interpretation.

Or a belief of the words on the page, depending upon what side of it one is on.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Or a belief of the words on the page, depending upon what side of it one is on.

Again, are the parables of Jesus and the Book of Revelation meant to be interpreted in a strictly literal fashion? And what does believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis have anything to do with our salvation?

 

[dlamberth]

You are welcome to critique it.

Oh-Oh...
Be prepared to be entertained.

 

[Navair2]

Again, are the parables of Jesus and the Book of Revelation meant to be interpreted in a strictly literal fashion?

Parables hide truths, which is why the Lord spoke to the Jews using them, and then expounded them to His disciples when He was with them in private ( Matthew 13 ).

The Book of Revelation contains much symbolism and a few allegories, but much of it is literal.
I'm sorry if it's confusing to you, but I admit that many years ago before I did as the Lord commanded me to in 1 Peter 2:2 and 2 Timothy 2:15, many things were a mystery to me.

Study it deeply, my friend...
Seek Him through His word, and it will reward itself.

It pays off over time and diligence to all of God's precious children.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are we required to believe that God created plants before creating the sun?

Because the Bible says they were.

Angiosperms the third day.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The sun on the fourth day.

Genesis 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Don't they contradict each other on the order of events described?

They most certainly seem to.

But let me ask you this: How many times in Genesis 2 did God put Adam into the Garden?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Obviously one of those occurrences is being stated after the fact.

Since Ben Shapiro knows Biblical Hebrew, I believe he was speaking colloquially in referring to the apple.

I'll humor him for the sake of arguing.

It's a matter of what's better supported by the scientific evidence, evolution or a six-day creation.

Science can take a hike. Science has NOTHING to do with what transpired that first week of the universe's existence in 4004 BC. Absolutely nothing. In fact, Genesis 1 violates just about every known law in the universe.

If a passage of scripture contradicts what God has revealed in nature, then that passage is likely not meant to be interpreted literally.

Did Jesus walk on water? if so, what does God reveal to us through buoyancy laws?

We know that Jesus often taught in parables,

And I believe those parables were real events that Jesus witnessed in His lifetime on Earth.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Parables hide truths, which is why the Lord spoke to the Jews using them, and then expounded them to His disciples when He was with them in private ( Matthew 13 ).

Whether the first few chapters of Genesis are meant to be taken literally or allegorically, we can learn from it that God created the world and everything in it, and that spiritual death entered the world through man's rebellion against God's law. Genesis, like the parables of Jesus and Revelation, can teach a moral and theological lesson without being interpreted 100% literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, are the parables of Jesus and the Book of Revelation meant to be interpreted in a strictly literal fashion?

YES to Jesus' parables.

As far as the Book of Revelation, YES and NO.

The events were encoded or, as God put it:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

By encoding it (or sign-ifying) it, God used every word picture found in the Old Testament (lion, lamb, tree, serpent, star, whatever) and brought them all together in one book: Revelation.

And what does believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis have anything to do with our salvation?

Let's not bring salvation into this please. Salvation is a different doctrine from creation altogether.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

They most certainly seem to.

Is it possible that they contradict each other on the order of events because they weren't meant to be taken literally in the first place? Also, how familiar are you with the evidences presented for universal common descent?