Evolution & Biblical Inerrancy

[Humble_Disciple]

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

So I guess we agree that one's interpretation of Genesis has little or nothing to do with one's salvation. Where do you get the idea that the parables of Jesus describe historical events?

 

[Navair2]

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.

I can see that we will disagree ( probably ) on many things.

That said,
I wish you well, and may God bless you in your continuing studies of His word.

 

[AV1611VET]

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 ).

Yup.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

I won't disagree with that, but the real question is:

Was Genesis meant to be taken literally?

Jesus interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and so should I.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I wish you well, and may God bless you in your continuing studies.

I'm not new to this whole creation vs. evolution controversy. I know a great deal about the evidence presented for universal common descent. I also belong to a Baptist church which teaches the inerrancy of Scripture, without requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Jesus interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and so should I.

Where in the Gospels does Jesus do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

No.

Also, how familiar are you with the evidences presented for universal common descent?

Again, H_D, let's not talk about what happened after Genesis 1 and 2, else we'll get sidetracked by the Fall, the Flood, and everything else science can literally deny.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

No.

Please elaborate.

Again, H_D, let's not talk about what happened after Genesis 1 and 2, else we'll get sidetracked by the Fall, the Flood, and everything else science can literally deny.

If you were familiar with the evidence for universal common descent, you probably wouldn't insist on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. The Bible is not meant to contradict what we observe in nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess we agree that one's interpretation of Genesis has little or nothing to do with one's salvation.

I said it was a different subject.

Where do you get the idea that the parables of Jesus describe historical events?

Note this passage:

Numbers 23:7 And he took up his parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.

Although referred to as a "parable," this is an event that literally occurred:

Numbers 22:6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.

 

[d taylor]

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:

-​

That if carries a whole lot of baggage and problems as you travel through the Bible.

Dr David L Cooper.
When The Plain Sense of Scripture Makes Common Sense, Seek no Other Sense; Therefore, Take Every Word at its Primary, Ordinary, Usual, Literal Meaning Unless the Facts of the Immediate Context, Studied in
the Light of Related Passages and Axiomatic and Fundamental Truths Indicate Clearly Otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in the Gospels does Jesus do that?

Notice here, where Jesus says:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Jesus is quoting Genesis 1:27.

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Here He quotes Genesis 2:24.

So He quotes from Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were familiar with the evidence for universal common descent, you probably wouldn't insist on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. The Bible is not meant to contradict what we observe in nature.

A couple of potent questions to consider:

1. Was Adam a mutant, copy error, made in the image & likeness of God?
2. Did a great ape die on the Cross to effect our salvation?

Universal common descent, on our part, started with Adam, not some cyanobacteria in the ocean.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Notice here, where Jesus says:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Jesus is quoting Genesis 1:27.

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Here He quotes Genesis 2:24.

So He quotes from Genesis 1 and 2.

This depends on whether you interpret "beginning" in Matthew 19:4 as referring to the beginning of creation or simply the beginning of humanity.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

A couple of potent questions to consider:

1. Was Adam a mutant, copy error, made in the image & likeness of God?
2. Did a great ape die on the Cross to effect our salvation?

Universal common descent, on our part, started with Adam, not some cyanobacteria in the ocean.

You don't seem to know much about the evidence that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes. Also, the image of God refers to our spiritual nature, not our physical form.

 

[AV1611VET]

This depends on whether you interpret "beginning" in Matthew 19:4 as referring to the beginning of creation or simply the beginning of humanity.

Both are true.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't seem to know much about the evidence that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes.

Are you familiar with ontological reductionism?

 

[HTacianas]

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.

I had that same discussion with someone years ago. It seemed to me that Adam and Eve went through puberty and left their childhood "garden of Eden" behind and could never return. I think all people have some sense of nostalgia about their childhood. A simpler time with few cares. The bible alludes to the same thing here and there. Isaiah 7:16 has it, "For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good...". Jonah 4:11 mentions it also saying "twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left". Discerning between right and left is Hebrew slang for knowing good from evil. The new testament says at Mark 10:14 "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God". Matthew 18:3 has "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven".

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Both are true.

How do you know that for certain?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Are you familiar with ontological reductionism?

What is your point? If you were well-versed in the physical evidences that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes, you probably wouldn't insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Here is a chart showing the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:

A common approach to this problem has been to squeeze the events of Genesis 2 into the sixth day of Genesis 1, but the numerous differences between the two accounts (see chart) have convinced many biblical scholars that they are not meant to be seamlessly intertwined in one account. Instead, Genesis 1:1-2:3 is better understood as a prologue to the rest of Genesis. According to biblical scholar J. Richard Middleton,

In Genesis 1 we find God calling the cosmos (heaven and earth, and all that is in them) into existence. Then in the rest of Genesis (beginning in Genesis 2) we have the account of what came of (or developed out of) God’s initial creation, how humans responded to God’s call to be his image in the world.

These textual insights point to a remarkable literary depth in the early chapters of Genesis. What may seem like two disjointed creation narratives turns out to be a strategic arrangement serving the book as a whole.

The fact that God inspired the text in such a way that these two distinct creation accounts appear side by side strongly indicates that the chronology of creation is not the main focus of these texts. Together, they give us a fuller theological picture of God’s work in creation.
How long are the days of Genesis 1? - Common-questions