Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

Then let me apply your metric. Nothing about billions of years of violence, suffering and predation. Plenty of references in your bible about creation. Here's a handful

Genesis 1:1–31: The primary narrative detailing God's work over six consecutive days.
Genesis 2:1–3: Concludes the creation week, stating that God finished His work and rested on the seventh day, blessing and sanctifying it.
Exodus 20:8–11: Part of the Fourth Commandment, which links the human work week to the divine pattern: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth... and rested the seventh day".
Exodus 31:16–17: Reinforces the Sabbath as a sign, stating that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
Hebrews 4:4: A New Testament reference to the creation week: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works".

Of course since these are inconvenient we can simply reinterpret them. Of course that means we can also reinterpret any text we desire. Perhaps psalms is referring to eager young men.

Really, it is disingenuous to reinterpret your bibles claim of a 7 day creation when the entire economy of Israel was built on it. The weekly cycle was capped every 7 days by a memorial to that creation.

I am not arguing the veracity of a 7 day creation but I am pointing out the dissonance of trying to shoehorn evolution into the bible.

You seem to place a great deal of trust in what the bible doesn't say? Certainly it infers that animals death is part of the fall. God made a covenant with not only Noah but all of the animals as well. Event more importantly how can we cherry pick what to reinterpret and what to take at face value. Death came by Adam romans 5:14. I know that you reinterpret this to only mean "Spiritual" death but your can't have one without the other.

I question the god you portray. No death before the fall is biblically more sound and secure an argument than death, suffering, and predation. I can create a strong textual argument for that based on what the bible does say rather than what it doesn't.

Inferred not assumed. The Bible strongly implies that animals did not die before the Fall of man, even if it does not state it in a single sentence. In Genesis 1:29–30, God gives both humans and animals plants for food, with no mention of hunting or killing, which suggests a peaceful creation without death. God then calls this world “very good,” a description that is hard to reconcile with a system built on suffering, predation, and extinction. When sin enters in Genesis 3, death, pain, and corruption appear as consequences, not as normal features of creation. This understanding is reinforced later in Scripture, where Paul teaches that death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12) and describes all creation as now “subjected to corruption” and “groaning” as it waits for restoration (Romans 8:20–22). If animals had always lived and died through violence, it would make little sense to describe creation as fallen or awaiting freedom. Taken together, these passages strongly suggest that death—human and animal alike—was not part of God’s original design, but a result of humanity’s rebellion.

The Tree of Life does not imply that death was already present; it implies the opposite—that life was sustained by God’s provision, not threatened by natural decay. Genesis never says Adam or the animals were immortal by nature. Their life was contingent on remaining in God’s ordered creation, where access to the Tree of Life symbolized continued fellowship and life from God. Contingent life is not the same thing as inevitable death. A lamp depends on electricity to stay lit, but that doesn’t mean it is already “dying” while the power is on.

In fact, Genesis 3 makes the point very clear. After the Fall, God removes Adam from the garden “lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and live forever” (Genesis 3:22). This shows that death becomes a real threat only after sin, not before. If death were already a normal part of creation, barring access to the Tree of Life would make little sense—Adam would have been dying anyway. Instead, the text presents death as something newly introduced, requiring separation from the Tree to ensure it takes effect.

This is not a modern assumption; it is a straightforward reading of the narrative. Genesis portrays a world sustained by life, called “very good,” with death entering only after rebellion. The Tree of Life does not undermine that view—it reinforces it by showing that life was God’s gift, maintained in a creation not yet corrupted by sin.


First of all you are trying to put the bible downstream from Church Fathers. I would guess that you are Catholic with that understanding (no disrespect, just an observation.) Secondly, you are ignoring the larger scope of his writings.

At first glance, this quote can sound like Augustine believed animal death was always part of God’s original design. But that is not what he meant. Augustine was responding to people who claimed the world was bad because it contains things that decay, change, or pass away. His point was that created things can still be good even if they are temporary.

Augustine made an important distinction between changeability and punishment. He believed animals were created as finite creatures that live and die, but humans were different. Adam was not created under the necessity of death. When Augustine says Adam “contracted” the same liability to death found in animals, he means that humans fell into a lower condition, not that death was always meant to rule over humanity. Human death, for Augustine, was the result of sin, not God’s original plan.

When Augustine talks about creatures “passing away and giving place to others,” he is describing the normal passing of time and seasons, not violent struggle or evolution through suffering. He is saying that change can still have beauty, not that death and destruction were tools God used to create life.

Most importantly, Augustine never taught that death was a creative force. He consistently called death a corruption and an enemy, especially when it comes to human beings. The goal of salvation, for Augustine, was resurrection and restoration, not accepting death as a good or necessary part of creation.

So while Augustine acknowledged that animals are mortal, he did not believe death was part of God’s perfect design for humanity or that God used death to bring about higher life. That idea fits modern theistic evolution, but it does not fit Augustine’s understanding of creation, the Fall, and redemption.

This is based on your evolutionary bias but you have no biblical evidence to support such an assumption. In fact it runs counter to what the bible does say.

It absolutely runs counter to what the bible clearly infers. I could run it by you again and again, but you won't hear it.

I have laid it out time and time again with texts. Your bible reference is empty of words because it is what the bible does not explicitly say. But the inferences are overwhelming.

So your position is that God came along to this rock about 4.5 billion years ago, give or take a few billion. After about a billion years and some change, He deposited some microbial life that He had figured out how to make. Then He sat back to watch all of the death, suffering, and destruction to see who was the strongest, most cunning, and ruthless among the population and would win the day. Eventually, through this random process, predators and prey existed. Oh, what joy to hear the dying screams of the weak and helpless—just what was needed to advance the process. God made the world very random in everything so that only the fittest could survive. This world was a very negative place, as you can imagine. The dinosaurs were beating out almost everyone, although the insects were quietly thriving.

Perhaps God was disturbed that He hadn’t seen the dinos doing so well and, if not checked, they would soon take over the mammals, so He threw a rock at the planet and boom—no more dinos. Or maybe it was just a lucky coincidence. Finally, apes appeared, and one species of them had random mutations that gave them bigger brains.

God then changed His mind and decided against this evolutionary process. He thought He might try love, but how would He stop all of this? Then He got the idea of making His law and putting an end to all the chaos. So He tried to tell these apes to go opposite of evolution and love their enemies, care for the poor, weak, and less fit. But He must have underestimated what billions of years had baked into these apes, because only a few heeded His call.

And lastly, regarding Augustine:

We have death before the fall. You can argue that to be limited to just animals if you want to, I granted that interpretation in a prior post (with the caveat that it is still a concordist hermeneutic which is flawed).

But the point here is that traditionally, death before the fall has long been a supported view. Which runs contrary to your position.

And that's important theologically.

I'm not arguing that the Bible describes evolution. My opinion in this regard, is not different than Augustine's.

You're still approaching this discussion, and the Bible, from a concordist modern perspective and we are simply speaking past each other.

 

[Mercy Shown]

And lastly, regarding Augustine:

We have death before the fall. You can argue that to be limited to just animals if you want to, I granted that interpretation in a prior post (with the caveat that it is still a concordist hermeneutic which is flawed).

But the point here is that traditionally, death before the fall has long been a supported view. Which runs contrary to your position.

And that's important theologically.

I'm not arguing that the Bible describes evolution. My opinion in this regard, is not different than Augustine's.

You're still approaching this discussion, and the Bible, from a concordist modern perspective and we are simply speaking past each other.

Appealing to Augustine doesn’t settle the issue the way you’re suggesting. Augustine is important, but he is not the voice of the early church, and the Fathers were not unanimous on this question. If we’re going to argue from tradition rather than from Scripture itself, then we have to deal honestly with the fact that many major Church Fathers explicitly rejected death before the Fall, not just for humans but for creation as a whole.

Take Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century). He directly connects death to disobedience, not to original design:

“God did not make death, nor does He rejoice in the destruction of the living… Man was created immortal, but capable of death; death came to him through transgression.”
(To Autolycus, II.26)

That’s not concordism—that’s straightforward theology: death is the result of sin, not a background feature of creation.

Irenaeus of Lyons is even clearer. He repeatedly treats death as something that enters creation because of Adam:

“For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained dominion, so also by the obedience of one man righteousness was introduced, and life bestowed.”
(Against Heresies, III.18.7)

Irenaeus grounds Christ’s saving work in the undoing of Adam’s act. That only works if death is an intruder, not a long-standing condition.

And Athanasius, writing in On the Incarnation, makes the same assumption:

“By transgression of the commandment, men turned back again to their natural state, so that as they were made out of nothing, so also they might suffer in due time corruption back into nothing.”
(On the Incarnation, 4)

For Athanasius, corruption and death are not how creation started—they are what happens when humanity falls away from God, the source of life.

So the idea that “death before the Fall has long been a supported view” really depends on which Fathers you listen to. Augustine held a nuanced position about animal mortality, yes—but he still insisted that human death was a punishment for sin and that death was not part of God’s original intention for humanity. Other Fathers went further and denied death altogether as part of the original order.

That’s why appealing to Augustine alone doesn’t resolve this. Tradition itself is divided. And when tradition is divided, the deciding authority has to be Scripture, not selective patristic citation.

So this isn’t about modern concordism versus ancient wisdom. It’s about recognizing that the early church did not speak with one voice on this issue—and that many of its most influential theologians saw death as an enemy that entered creation through sin, not as something God built into the world from the start.

 

[Mercy Shown]

And no, God didn't simply give animals plants to eat. Let's read the passages again:

Genesis 1:29 ESV
[29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

Oh wait, I forgot about the passage right before it:

Genesis 1:28 ESV
[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God gives humanity dominion and rulership over all the animals of the world. What do you do with wild fish, aside from eating them? Do you think Adam and Eve built an aquarium?

When you're reading to examine the issues of concordism, I'll be here. Otherwise we are just talking past each other.

Romans 8 doesn't say anything about death. Romans 5 is about the sin and death of man, it's not about insects dying because they ate the sugar cubes off my table.

I think this is where things really do start to come apart.

You’re leaning very hard on Genesis 1:28 to make your case about dominion and eating animals, but at the same time you’re comfortable setting aside Genesis 1:29–30, which explicitly talks about plants being given for food. You can’t have it both ways. If Genesis 1 carries enough authority for dominion to imply fishing and killing, then it also carries enough authority to at least raise serious questions about diet and death in the original creation. Why does verse 28 get full weight while the surrounding verses are treated as flexible or symbolic?

And that raises a bigger question: do you actually believe in Adam as a real historical person? Because your argument assumes a real Adam exercising real dominion over real animals—but elsewhere you’ve been clear that you don’t read Genesis literally or historically in that way. If Adam is symbolic, then appeals to what “Adam would have done” with fish don’t really carry much force. If Adam is historical, then Genesis deserves to be read as a coherent narrative, not selectively literal when it helps one point and non-literal when it complicates another.

As for dominion, dominion does not automatically mean killing. Kings have dominion over their people, but that doesn’t mean violence is the default expression of that authority. Scripture later describes righteous dominion as care, stewardship, and protection, not exploitation. Jumping straight from “dominion” to “obviously they were eating animals” is an assumption, not something the text actually states.

On Romans 8, I think you’re narrowing it more than Paul does. Paul says creation was “subjected to futility,” is in “bondage to corruption,” and is “groaning.” That’s not neutral language. Corruption and bondage aren’t just about human guilt; they describe a broken order awaiting redemption. Paul doesn’t need to list insects or animals individually for the point to stand—he’s talking about creation as a whole being affected by the Fall and longing for restoration.

And finally, the concordism charge cuts both ways. You’re warning against reading Genesis through modern lenses, but then you import very modern assumptions about food systems, ecology, and human behavior back into the text (“what else would you do with fish?”). That’s not avoiding concordism—that’s just a different version of it.

So yes, we may be talking past each other—but not because one of us is ignoring science. It’s because you’re willing to treat Genesis as authoritative when it supports your argument, and dismissive when it complicates it. Until that tension is addressed, the disagreement isn’t really about concordism at all.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Ah, the difference here is that I never claimed the Bible to support billions of years.

Did you miss the issue of concordism in your response?

Your response completely misses the core issue of your hermeneutic and misrepresents mine in a typical strawman fashion.

You then go off on an extended concordist barrage of verses and thoughts, never even pausing to examine the issue at its very core.

You are asking Genesis to deny something it never set out to describe, while assuming it affirms something it never states.

I think you’re misunderstanding what I was doing there, and maybe projecting a bit of the concordism issue onto my reply.

I’m not claiming the Bible teaches “billions of years” one way or the other. My point was simpler than that. You’ve said Genesis shouldn’t be expected to deny long ages, violence, or predation because it “never set out to describe” those things. Fine—but by that same metric, it also never sets out to affirm them. That cuts both ways.

So when I point out that Scripture repeatedly describes creation as “very good,” free from corruption, death entering through sin, and a future restoration that looks like peace rather than predation, I’m not asking Genesis to do science. I’m asking whether your framework is being brought to the text from outside and then protected by saying, “Genesis isn’t about that.”

You keep appealing to concordism, but the issue isn’t whether Genesis maps neatly onto a modern scientific timeline. It’s whether your reading quietly assumes a world of death and suffering before the Fall and then shields that assumption from critique by saying the text is silent. Silence isn’t the same thing as support.

And I’m not misrepresenting your view. You may not say the Bible teaches billions of years, but you do read the Bible in a way that makes billions of years of predation and death theologically acceptable. That’s a positive interpretive move, not a neutral one. It deserves to be examined just like any other hermeneutic.

So no, I’m not asking Genesis to deny something it never addresses. I’m asking why, when Genesis speaks clearly about creation, goodness, death, and corruption, those themes are treated as theologically weighty—except when they raise problems for a theistic evolutionary model. That’s the core issue I’m pressing.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that I'm not entrenched, but I am existentially and epistemologically confounded. So..... even though in my knowledge base about a dozen competing views on handling the tensions in and between Evolution, Science, Theology and the Bible, I'm essentially "stuck" at the moment in a viewpoint that is more or less reflective of that of Peter Enns and Malcolm A. Jeeves.

Peter Enns’ and Malcolm A. Jeeves’ approaches share a common weakness: they resolve the tension between evolution and Christianity by reshaping theology rather than allowing Scripture to set the framework. Enns treats Genesis primarily as a reflection of an ancient worldview, which shifts the Bible from being a source of authoritative truth to a record of what ancient people believed about God and the world. This creates a serious problem for later biblical theology, especially Paul’s arguments in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, where Adam is treated as a real historical figure whose actions brought sin and death into the world. If Adam functions only as a theological symbol rooted in an outdated worldview, then Paul’s reasoning—not just his language—loses its foundation, leaving the gospel’s logic strained even if its conclusions are verbally affirmed.


Jeeves, by contrast, accepts the scientific framework of long ages, death, and suffering as fixed and then adjusts Christian doctrine to fit within it. This leads to a minimized view of death as a theological problem, even though Scripture consistently presents death as an enemy and a curse that Christ came to defeat. In both views, the Fall becomes less about a real rupture in creation and more about a change in human spiritual awareness, which weakens passages like Romans 8 where creation itself is said to groan for redemption. The result is a faith that preserves belief in God and Christ, but at the cost of thinning the Bible’s own story about what went wrong in the world and why redemption was necessary in the first place.

It's not as if I 'won't believe' you if you present your arguments. It's rather than I've already heard most of the ongoing arguments from a variety of sources for the last---oh---40 years or so.

Do you even know what my present arguments are?

Try not to take offense if I say that I simply disagree with you on this topic, but I recognize that you're a fellow Trinitarian Christian, nevertheless.

Why would you assume that I take offense? This is a forum not real life.

Saying these things doesn't somehow upend my position. Do you think it does? Moreover, you don't even know which scholars I have on my shelves. It might be that I have a smorgasbord of scholars whom I've heard out, all who come from various, different denominations, scientific positions, and interpretive schools. None of these scholars can be said to just be "....making whatever they want out of the bible..."

Do you know what an appeal to authority logical fallacy is?

You might want to know what you're criticizing before criticizing.

This cuts both ways.

I didn't say that I think "my way" is the right one. I'm not in a competition here with you. I'm merely a Philosopher who is familiar with the Philosophy of Science and the History of Science. I'm in the position that I am at the moment merely because, based on the evidences and theories I have at hand, which is quite a few, this is where I am. That could change going on into the future, unless I die first.

I appreciate that, and I actually respect the posture you’re describing. Saying “this is where I am based on the evidence I have, and it could change” is a fair and intellectually honest position. I’m not treating this like a competition either, and I’m not trying to force you into a corner where you have to defend a fixed system at all costs.

Where I think we may still be talking past each other is this: even that posture isn’t neutral. Philosophy of science can tell us how theories function, how paradigms shift, and how evidence is interpreted—but it can’t tell us what ought to be true about meaning, purpose, or God’s character. The moment we start talking about God acting through evolution, we’ve stepped outside science and into metaphysics and theology, whether we label it that way or not. At that point, everyone is reasoning from prior commitments, not just raw data.


So my pushback is that the position you’re currently in still carries theological implications, especially about death, suffering, and purpose, and those implications deserve to be examined just as seriously as the evidence itself. I’m not asking you to abandon philosophical humility—I’m asking whether the conclusions being drawn actually sit comfortably with the broader biblical story and the God it presents. That’s the conversation I’m trying to have.

you're saying here about faith is a False Equivalence between various denotations of the term "faith." There's more than one; and many words often have more than one denotation. They also often have more than one connotation. And being that this is the case, it's better to not project at others, telling them what they must mean by the words they use. It's also bad hermeneutical form, one that doesn't really jive with healthy interpersonal communication (or Communication Theory, at that). Lastly, I find your insinuations about what Evidence is and does to be..................sort of disturbing. Maybe try not to approach this topic like you have to lightning strike evey other Christian who disagrees with you??

Lastly, I find your insinuations about what Evidence is and does to be..................sort of disturbing. Maybe try not to approach this topic like you have to lightning strike evey other Christian who disagrees with you??

I don’t think this is a false equivalence at all, and I’m not confusing definitions or projecting meanings onto you. I’m using faith in the most basic sense: trust in something that cannot be demonstrated directly or exhaustively proven. You can subdivide the word into denotations and connotations if you want, but that doesn’t change the underlying point. Both of us are making metaphysical commitments that go beyond empirical demonstration. Calling attention to that isn’t bad communication; it’s honesty about the limits of evidence.


And I’m not trying to “lightning strike” anyone who disagrees with me. That framing feels unfair. Questioning the moral and theological implications of a view isn’t an attack on the people who hold it. If a model implies that God intentionally used billions of years of suffering, extinction, and violence to arrive at humanity, then it’s reasonable—necessary, even—to ask what that says about God’s character and purposes. That’s not polemics; that’s theology.


As for evidence, I’m not dismissing it. I’m pointing out that evidence alone doesn’t settle these questions. Evolutionary theory, by its own admission, is non-teleological—it doesn’t care who survives, who dies, or what meaning any outcome has. When you attach divine purpose to that process, you’re no longer talking about science but about interpretation. That interpretive move is where faith comes in, just as it does when someone takes God at His word in Genesis. We may disagree about which faith commitment is more coherent or faithful to Scripture, but pretending one side is purely evidential while the other is not just obscures the real issue rather than clarifying it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you’re misunderstanding what I was doing there, and maybe projecting a bit of the concordism issue onto my reply.

I’m not claiming the Bible teaches “billions of years” one way or the other. My point was simpler than that. You’ve said Genesis shouldn’t be expected to deny long ages, violence, or predation because it “never set out to describe” those things. Fine—but by that same metric, it also never sets out to affirm them. That cuts both ways.

Your position assumes that the text ought to address these issues, not mine. I agree that silence is not support, and I have never claimed Genesis supports long ages or evolution. That has never been my argument.

So when I point out that Scripture repeatedly describes creation as “very good,” free from corruption, death entering through sin, and a future restoration that looks like peace rather than predation, I’m not asking Genesis to do science. I’m asking whether your framework is being brought to the text from outside and then protected by saying, “Genesis isn’t about that.”

That's fine. And as I've noted, "good" doesn't inherently mean deathless.

We disagree on the text and that's fine. But at the end of the day, your position on the text is anachronistic. And that's the difference.

You keep appealing to concordism, but the issue isn’t whether Genesis maps neatly onto a modern scientific timeline. It’s whether your reading quietly assumes a world of death and suffering before the Fall and then shields that assumption from critique by saying the text is silent. Silence isn’t the same thing as support.

In its cultural background of the ancient near east, animals were not created immortal. My position falls in line with the cultural default, yours does not.

And I’m not misrepresenting your view. You may not say the Bible teaches billions of years, but you do read the Bible in a way that makes billions of years of predation and death theologically acceptable. That’s a positive interpretive move, not a neutral one. It deserves to be examined just like any other hermeneutic.

Sure. But I don't derive the age of the earth from the text, as you've made an effort to propose that I do. Or seemingly so. Yet you have made a positive effort to use the text to argue for why it does not support an old earth. Which the text doesn't address.

So no, I’m not asking Genesis to deny something it never addresses. I’m asking why, when Genesis speaks clearly about creation, goodness, death, and corruption, those themes are treated as theologically weighty—except when they raise problems for a theistic evolutionary model. That’s the core issue I’m pressing.

They aren't weighty with respect to evolution because the Bible doesn't address the topic. Remember, you initiated with efforts to use the text to undermine the theory. I did not initiate by trying to use the text to defend the theory.

I am not shielding assumptions behind silence. I am refusing to let later moral intuitions override the textual and cultural data. Your reading requires Genesis to mean something very specific about biology and death that it never states and that its original audience would not have assumed. That is why the disagreement persists.

The real question isn’t about evolution or the age of the earth. It’s about hermeneutical grounding, whose reading aligns with the text and its cultural context. My approach starts with the ancient Near Eastern worldview and the original intentions of the biblical authors. Predation, death, and natural cycles were understood as part of creation; “good” meant ordered, functioning, and fruitful, not biologically immortal. Your approach reads in a modern moral expectation, deathless, suffering-free animals, and treats that as if the text must support it. That’s why the debate isn’t over Genesis per se, but over which interpretive framework is legitimate.

To put it plainly, this isn't an even shakedown. My position originates from contextual background data. Your position is an anachronism. And if you would like to critique that approach, you're more than welcome to.

In the ancient Near Eastern world, no one thought animals were immortal. Cycles of birth, decay, predation, and renewal were taken for granted as part of an ordered world. Genesis is written within that cultural environment, not against it. So when the text says creation is good, it is affirming order, function, and purpose, not making a metaphysical claim about a deathless biosphere.

What matters, then, is not whether Genesis explicitly affirms or denies long ages or predation, but whether your reading imports assumptions that did not exist for the original audience. The idea that animal death is inherently evil or that a “good” creation must be biologically immortal is not an ancient assumption, it is a much later theological development. My reading aligns with the cultural default of the text; yours requires Genesis to quietly overturn it without ever saying so.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think this is where things really do start to come apart.

You’re leaning very hard on Genesis 1:28 to make your case about dominion and eating animals, but at the same time you’re comfortable setting aside Genesis 1:29–30, which explicitly talks about plants being given for food. You can’t have it both ways. If Genesis 1 carries enough authority for dominion to imply fishing and killing, then it also carries enough authority to at least raise serious questions about diet and death in the original creation. Why does verse 28 get full weight while the surrounding verses are treated as flexible or symbolic?

And that raises a bigger question: do you actually believe in Adam as a real historical person? Because your argument assumes a real Adam exercising real dominion over real animals—but elsewhere you’ve been clear that you don’t read Genesis literally or historically in that way. If Adam is symbolic, then appeals to what “Adam would have done” with fish don’t really carry much force. If Adam is historical, then Genesis deserves to be read as a coherent narrative, not selectively literal when it helps one point and non-literal when it complicates another.

As for dominion, dominion does not automatically mean killing. Kings have dominion over their people, but that doesn’t mean violence is the default expression of that authority. Scripture later describes righteous dominion as care, stewardship, and protection, not exploitation. Jumping straight from “dominion” to “obviously they were eating animals” is an assumption, not something the text actually states.

On Romans 8, I think you’re narrowing it more than Paul does. Paul says creation was “subjected to futility,” is in “bondage to corruption,” and is “groaning.” That’s not neutral language. Corruption and bondage aren’t just about human guilt; they describe a broken order awaiting redemption. Paul doesn’t need to list insects or animals individually for the point to stand—he’s talking about creation as a whole being affected by the Fall and longing for restoration.

And finally, the concordism charge cuts both ways. You’re warning against reading Genesis through modern lenses, but then you import very modern assumptions about food systems, ecology, and human behavior back into the text (“what else would you do with fish?”). That’s not avoiding concordism—that’s just a different version of it.

So yes, we may be talking past each other—but not because one of us is ignoring science. It’s because you’re willing to treat Genesis as authoritative when it supports your argument, and dismissive when it complicates it. Until that tension is addressed, the disagreement isn’t really about concordism at all.

In the Bible, the Hebrew terms used in Genesis 1:26-28, those regarding the subduing of creation and dominion over animals are statistically harsh. It's not a random decision to view these terms as involving an armed struggle, it's just based on how these terms are used in the old testament. They certainly are never used in ways that involve peace and love and gentle care of pets.

 

[Job 33:6]

Appealing to Augustine doesn’t settle the issue the way you’re suggesting. Augustine is important, but he is not the voice of the early church, and the Fathers were not unanimous on this question. If we’re going to argue from tradition rather than from Scripture itself, then we have to deal honestly with the fact that many major Church Fathers explicitly rejected death before the Fall, not just for humans but for creation as a whole.

I'm just pointing out that the idea of animal death before the fall isn't distortion of the text or whatever it was you were pressing it to be. It's actually a traditionally well supported view. That's all. Saint Augustine found it to be perfectly reasonable, that says a lot. The point was not to "settle the score". It was just to highlight, as you've noted, the division going back into the early church. To highlight how it is actually a respectable position to hold, contrary to your earlier critiques.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I'm just pointing out that the idea of animal death before the fall isn't distortion of the text or whatever it was you were pressing it to be. It's actually a traditionally well supported view. That's all. Saint Augustine found it to be perfectly reasonable, that says a lot. The point was not to "settle the score". It was just to highlight, as you've noted, the division going back into the early church. To highlight how it is actually a respectable position to hold, contrary to your earlier critiques.

But you ignored the bulk of my post, which refuted your truth claim that "we have death before the fall." Any death before the fall is a distortion of the biblical narrative. By doing so, you are implying that God is the cause of death, that he used it to make humanbeings. Theistic Evolution makes God a cold-hearted lord who uses suffering, pain, and violence to create beings, and then commands, "Thou shalt not kill." Sorry, but this is dissonance. I can discuss evolution with an atheist very comfortably or debate a creationist with little reservation because they do not have that dissonance, and they have no reason to reinterpret anything to comport with their beliefs.

 

[Mercy Shown]

In the Bible, the Hebrew terms used in Genesis 1:26-28, those regarding the subduing of creation and dominion over animals are statistically harsh. It's not a random decision to view these terms as involving an armed struggle, it's just based on how these terms are used in the old testament. They certainly are never used in ways that involve peace and love and gentle care of pets.

I think that’s overstating the case, and it relies too heavily on word-study statistics without paying enough attention to context. Hebrew verbs don’t carry meaning in a vacuum; they take their shape from the setting they’re used in. Yes, kabash (subdue) and radah (have dominion) can be used in harsh or even violent contexts later in the Old Testament—but that doesn’t mean they must carry those connotations in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 isn’t a war scene. There’s no enemy, no resistance, no threat. It’s a creation account where God repeatedly calls what He’s made “good” and then “very good.” Reading “armed struggle” into that setting imports later fallen-world realities back into a pre-Fall text. The same word can describe conquest in one context and orderly governance in another. We do this all the time in English—“rule,” for example, can mean tyrannize or responsibly govern, depending on the situation.

Also, dominion in Genesis is explicitly patterned after God’s own rule. God brings order, names, blesses, sustains, and gives life—He doesn’t pillage His creation. Humans are made in His image to reflect that kind of rule, not Pharaoh-style oppression. If dominion necessarily meant violence, then God would be commanding humans to act in a way that contradicts both His character and the goodness of the creation He just declared “very good.”

So yes, those words can be harsh in a fallen context—but Genesis 1 isn’t fallen. Reading violence into dominion there assumes the very thing under debate. It’s not a neutral lexical conclusion; it’s a theological assumption smuggled in from later history rather than drawn from the creation narrative itself.

 

[Job 33:6]

But you ignored the bulk of my post, which refuted your truth claim that "we have death before the fall." Any death before the fall is a distortion of the biblical narrative. By doing so, you are implying that God is the cause of death, that he used it to make humanbeings. Theistic Evolution makes God a cold-hearted lord who uses suffering, pain, and violence to create beings, and then commands, "Thou shalt not kill." Sorry, but this is dissonance. I can discuss evolution with an atheist very comfortably or debate a creationist with little reservation because they do not have that dissonance, and they have no reason to reinterpret anything to comport with their beliefs.

Your claim that “any death before the Fall distorts the biblical narrative” is precisely what needs to be demonstrated from the text and its ancient context. In the ancient Near Eastern world, animal mortality, predation, and seasonal cycles were assumed features of a good and ordered creation. If Genesis were overturning that cultural and contextual default, by teaching that animals were immortal, it would require an explicit signal and textual evidence. “Very good” is not such a signal. It is a value judgment about order and function, not a biological claim about deathlessness.

You haven’t refuted my claim; you’ve asserted a different reading and backed it with moral discomfort rather than textual evidence. In the ANE, animal death was assumed in a good creation. If Genesis meant to overturn that assumption, it would need to say so explicitly. “Very good” doesn’t do that. Treating death as inherently evil and reading that into Genesis is anachronistic, not exegetical.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that’s overstating the case, and it relies too heavily on word-study statistics without paying enough attention to context. Hebrew verbs don’t carry meaning in a vacuum; they take their shape from the setting they’re used in. Yes, kabash (subdue) and radah (have dominion) can be used in harsh or even violent contexts later in the Old Testament—but that doesn’t mean they must carry those connotations in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 isn’t a war scene. There’s no enemy, no resistance, no threat. It’s a creation account where God repeatedly calls what He’s made “good” and then “very good.” Reading “armed struggle” into that setting imports later fallen-world realities back into a pre-Fall text. The same word can describe conquest in one context and orderly governance in another. We do this all the time in English—“rule,” for example, can mean tyrannize or responsibly govern, depending on the situation.

Also, dominion in Genesis is explicitly patterned after God’s own rule. God brings order, names, blesses, sustains, and gives life—He doesn’t pillage His creation. Humans are made in His image to reflect that kind of rule, not Pharaoh-style oppression. If dominion necessarily meant violence, then God would be commanding humans to act in a way that contradicts both His character and the goodness of the creation He just declared “very good.”

So yes, those words can be harsh in a fallen context—but Genesis 1 isn’t fallen. Reading violence into dominion there assumes the very thing under debate. It’s not a neutral lexical conclusion; it’s a theological assumption smuggled in from later history rather than drawn from the creation narrative itself.

I agree that Hebrew verbs don’t carry meaning in a vacuum. Context matters. But context includes usage patterns and cultural background, not just theological expectations about what a “very good” world must look like.

With kabash in particular, the issue is not that it can be harsh in fallen contexts, it is that every attested biblical usage involves forceful subjugation: conquest, domination, or violation. There is no unambiguous example where it means gentle stewardship. To claim that Genesis 1 is the lone exception requires positive evidence, not an appeal to the moral tone of the chapter. Saying “this isn’t a war scene” does not change the semantic force of the verb; it simply assumes that violence and death are excluded beforehand, which is the very point under dispute.

Likewise with radah. Yes, “rule” can be exercised responsibly, but in the ancient Near Eastern context, dominion language is tied to kingship, hierarchy, and control over animals and land, not to modern notions of ecological caretaking. Reading Genesis 1 as “death-free stewardship” is not drawing meaning from the ANE world; it is importing a later theological ideal and then letting that ideal redefine the verbs.

What’s happening here is circular. The text is assumed to describe a deathless creation, therefore the verbs must be softened; and the verbs are softened because the creation is assumed to be deathless. But nowhere is the text being shown to break from its cultural default, where animal mortality and human dominion, even forceful dominion, were part of an ordered, “good” world. Until that break is demonstrated, the claim of universal pre-Fall animal immortality remains an anachronistic inference, not a contextual conclusion.

What I’m asking for is not concordism or modern science in Genesis, but textual evidence that Genesis breaks from its cultural default. Without that, softening kabash and radah or assuming a death-free creation is not contextual exegesis; it is a theological conclusion being read back into the text and then used to redefine the language.

 

[Job 33:6]

What I’m pointing out is not that disagreement is impossible, but that different methods of interpretation are being used.

In every other biblical occurrence, kabash denotes forceful subjugation. If Genesis 1 is being proposed as the lone exception, where the same verb suddenly means gentle care or mutual death-free harmony, then that exception needs to be argued from textual or cultural evidence. So far, the justification has not come from usage data in the old testament or ANE background, but from a prior theological conviction about what a “good” creation must entail.

That’s the key distinction. I’m grounding my reading in lexical evidence and historical context; you are allowing theological conclusions to redefine the language itself. I’m not saying theology is irrelevant, only that it shouldn’t override exegesis. When theology dictates meaning rather than emerging from the text, interpretation becomes subjective, and that’s precisely why interpretive disagreements persist. @Mercy Shown

2 Chronicles 28:10 rebukes the Northern Kingdom’s intent “to make the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem your slaves.”

Nehemiah 5:5 laments, “we have had to subject our sons and daughters to slavery,” exposing social injustice inside the restored community.

Jeremiah 34:11, 16 condemns Judah for re-enslaving freed servants: “you have forced them to become your slaves again.”

Esther 7:8 uses the verb for Haman’s attempted assault upon Queen Esther, portraying personal violence.

Micah 7:19 trampling sin under foot

Zechariah 9:15 military triumph

But you're saying "no, the word is different this time."

I'm saying, "by what justification?" Then you say "Genesis calls it good".

Well, sorry but I find that to be an unconvincing response. Military triumph itself is good too. So that can't be your argument.

Theology can't can't justifiably supersede exegesis, because you are then superseding the Bible itself with your personal theology. You need textual and contextual evidence for your position, otherwise it just comes off as a personal opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Peter Enns’ and Malcolm A. Jeeves’ approaches share a common weakness: they resolve the tension between evolution and Christianity by reshaping theology rather than allowing Scripture to set the framework. Enns treats Genesis primarily as a reflection of an ancient worldview, which shifts the Bible from being a source of authoritative truth to a record of what ancient people believed about God and the world. This creates a serious problem for later biblical theology, especially Paul’s arguments in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, where Adam is treated as a real historical figure whose actions brought sin and death into the world. If Adam functions only as a theological symbol rooted in an outdated worldview, then Paul’s reasoning—not just his language—loses its foundation, leaving the gospel’s logic strained even if its conclusions are verbally affirmed.


Jeeves, by contrast, accepts the scientific framework of long ages, death, and suffering as fixed and then adjusts Christian doctrine to fit within it. This leads to a minimized view of death as a theological problem, even though Scripture consistently presents death as an enemy and a curse that Christ came to defeat. In both views, the Fall becomes less about a real rupture in creation and more about a change in human spiritual awareness, which weakens passages like Romans 8 where creation itself is said to groan for redemption. The result is a faith that preserves belief in God and Christ, but at the cost of thinning the Bible’s own story about what went wrong in the world and why redemption was necessary in the first place.

Do you even know what my present arguments are?

Why would you assume that I take offense? This is a forum not real life.

Do you know what an appeal to authority logical fallacy is?

This cuts both ways.

I appreciate that, and I actually respect the posture you’re describing. Saying “this is where I am based on the evidence I have, and it could change” is a fair and intellectually honest position. I’m not treating this like a competition either, and I’m not trying to force you into a corner where you have to defend a fixed system at all costs.

Where I think we may still be talking past each other is this: even that posture isn’t neutral. Philosophy of science can tell us how theories function, how paradigms shift, and how evidence is interpreted—but it can’t tell us what ought to be true about meaning, purpose, or God’s character. The moment we start talking about God acting through evolution, we’ve stepped outside science and into metaphysics and theology, whether we label it that way or not. At that point, everyone is reasoning from prior commitments, not just raw data.


So my pushback is that the position you’re currently in still carries theological implications, especially about death, suffering, and purpose, and those implications deserve to be examined just as seriously as the evidence itself. I’m not asking you to abandon philosophical humility—I’m asking whether the conclusions being drawn actually sit comfortably with the broader biblical story and the God it presents. That’s the conversation I’m trying to have.



I don’t think this is a false equivalence at all, and I’m not confusing definitions or projecting meanings onto you. I’m using faith in the most basic sense: trust in something that cannot be demonstrated directly or exhaustively proven. You can subdivide the word into denotations and connotations if you want, but that doesn’t change the underlying point. Both of us are making metaphysical commitments that go beyond empirical demonstration. Calling attention to that isn’t bad communication; it’s honesty about the limits of evidence.


And I’m not trying to “lightning strike” anyone who disagrees with me. That framing feels unfair. Questioning the moral and theological implications of a view isn’t an attack on the people who hold it. If a model implies that God intentionally used billions of years of suffering, extinction, and violence to arrive at humanity, then it’s reasonable—necessary, even—to ask what that says about God’s character and purposes. That’s not polemics; that’s theology.


As for evidence, I’m not dismissing it. I’m pointing out that evidence alone doesn’t settle these questions. Evolutionary theory, by its own admission, is non-teleological—it doesn’t care who survives, who dies, or what meaning any outcome has. When you attach divine purpose to that process, you’re no longer talking about science but about interpretation. That interpretive move is where faith comes in, just as it does when someone takes God at His word in Genesis. We may disagree about which faith commitment is more coherent or faithful to Scripture, but pretending one side is purely evidential while the other is not just obscures the real issue rather than clarifying it.

How about this instead:: we just agree to disagree? You write as if you have a college degree (in something), but then you fail to support your statements and, as an academically minded person, I DEMAND that if someone, even a fellow Christian, wants to demonstrate to me the errors of my thinking, they need to do a hell of a lot of work in order to do so. If they can't or won't do this, and do it without the usual excuse of "....but, but, but this is just a forum...," then they can get out of my face. I'm not going to be held superficially accountable by you or anyone else for my current beliefs, and I don't care how many scriptures you pull out from the New Testament (like say, from the Pastoral Letters, for instance) in order to give yourself self authorization to do so.

In other words, I'm not going to take a match to my diploma(s) and to my own theological studies and change my viewpoint just because some activist evangelical shows up to tell me I'm wrong, especially if they can't discern that I'm not here trying to persuade him/her away from his/her own interpretive view of the Bible or from his/her own version of the Christian faith.

There's so much here you've written that I disagree with and a lot here that seems either epistemologically erroneous or which misrepresents my position, and/or claims to understand other positions without actually indicating you've done the work; not only that, but I'm surprised by your misrepresentations and fallacies which all seem to be, strangely enough, wrapped up in articulate language. It's a bit disrespectful on your part, or even trollish, as far as I'm concerned.

And that's right. I don't believe in your axioms or other a priori assumptions. The only axiom I believe is that: no one, not me and not you, knows everything, especially not systematically.

In the end, my form of complaint about other Christians, particularly where the first several chapters of Genesis are concerned, is summed up by my re-appropriation of something said by Copernicus: “There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.” -- Nicolaus Copernicus

 

[Mercy Shown]

How about this instead:: we just agree to disagree? You write as if you have a college degree (in something), but then you fail to support your statements and, as an academically minded person, I DEMAND that if someone, even a fellow Christian, wants to demonstrate to me the errors of my thinking, they need to do a hell of a lot of work in order to do so. If they can't or won't do this, and do it without the usual excuse of "....but, but, but this is just a forum...," then they can get out of my face. I'm not going to be held superficially accountable by you or anyone else for my current beliefs, and I don't care how many scriptures you pull out from the New Testament in order to give yourself self authorization to do so.

I think this has become more personal than it needs to be. I’m not evaluating your education, demanding accountability, or trying to place myself in a position of authority over you. I don’t know you, and I have no interest in policing your beliefs.


What I’ve been discussing from the beginning is a theological question—what view of God’s character follows from theistic evolution—not you as a person, your credentials, or your spiritual life. Disagreement on that point isn’t an accusation, and it isn’t a demand.


If this conversation feels upsetting or unproductive, I’m genuinely fine with letting it end here. There’s no obligation to continue, and no offense taken if you’d rather disengage.

In other words, I'm not going to take a match to my diploma(s) and to my own theological studies and change my viewpoint just because some activist evangelical shows up to tell me I'm wrong, especially if they can't discern that I'm not here trying to persuade him/her away from his/her own interpretive view of the Bible or from his/her own version of the Christian faith.

I’m honestly not sure where “activist evangelical” came from, and no—I didn’t take that as a rhetorical flourish so much as an assumption. I’m not here to get anyone to “burn their diplomas,” and I’m certainly not trying to convert you to any version of Christianity. I’ve been pretty consistent about that. I’m pressing ideas, not credentials.


You’re right about one thing, though: religion does tend to put an edge on conversations, especially when there’s internal tension to manage. I can talk about evolution with atheists all day too, precisely because there’s no need to reconcile it with a theological narrative. The friction shows up when evolution is placed inside a Christian framework, because then questions about death, purpose, and God’s character are unavoidable. Pointing that out isn’t activism—it’s analysis.


And just to be clear, I’m not disputing your education or erudition. I don’t doubt you’ve read widely or thought deeply. But expertise doesn’t insulate a position from critique, just as disagreement isn’t a sign of ignorance or bad faith. If we can keep this about the ideas themselves—without leaning on labels or resumes—I think the conversation stays both sharper and more respectful for everyone involved.

There's so much here you've written that I disagree with and a lot here that seems either erroneous or which misrepresents my position, and/or claims to understand other positions without actually indicating you've done the work; not only that, but I'm surprised by your misrepresentations and fallacies which all seem to be, strangely enough, wrapped up in articulate language. It's a bit disrespectful on your part, or even trollish, as far as I'm concerned.

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization, and I want to be clear that I’m not trying to misrepresent you or be disrespectful. If I’ve misunderstood a point you’ve made, I’m open to correction—that’s part of having a real discussion. But dismissing what I’ve said as “trollish” or questioning my motives doesn’t actually move the conversation forward.


If there are specific errors, misrepresentations, or fallacies you see in what I’ve written, I’m happy to address them one by one. That’s how productive dialogue works. Broad accusations about my intent or effort don’t engage the substance of the argument; they shift the focus from ideas to personalities, which isn’t helpful for either of us.


I’m here to discuss the reasoning, the theology, and the implications of the views being presented—not to score points or take shots. If we can keep the exchange centered on the arguments themselves, I think the conversation will be worth continuing.

And that's right. I don't believe in your axioms or other a priori assumptions. The only axiom I believe is that: no one, not me and not you, knows everything, especially not systematically.

In the end, my form of complaint about other Christian's is summed up by Copernicus: “There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.” -- Nicolaus Copernicus

I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree with your stated axiom more than you might think. None of us knows everything, and none of us has a God’s-eye, systematic grasp of reality. That kind of epistemic humility is healthy. Where we seem to differ is that no one operates without some axioms or starting points—even the claim “no one knows everything” is itself a philosophical axiom. The question isn’t whether we have assumptions, but whether we’re willing to examine them and follow their implications honestly.

I also don’t think the Copernicus quote quite lands where you’re aiming it. Copernicus wasn’t dismissing theological questions; he was pushing back against people misusing Scripture to shut down inquiry they didn’t understand. Fair enough. But in this discussion, I’m not appealing to the Bible to end debate—I’m appealing to the Bible to ask whether certain theological conclusions are coherent with the Christian story being told. That’s a very different move from proof-texting to silence dissent.

To borrow from a philosopher who cared deeply about this tension, Immanuel Kant once said: “Reason must subject itself to criticism in all its undertakings.” That cuts both ways. It applies to naïve biblicism, yes—but it also applies to philosophical frameworks that quietly set boundaries on what kinds of divine action or meaning are allowed before the discussion even begins.

So I’m not asking you to accept my axioms, and I’m not claiming privileged knowledge. I’m asking whether the position you hold, however provisional and open to revision, carries theological consequences that deserve scrutiny. That’s not babbling, and it’s not condemnation—it’s simply taking ideas seriously enough to examine them.

 

[Job 33:6]

In the end, my form of complaint about other Christians, particularly where the first several chapters of Genesis are concerned, is summed up by my re-appropriation of something said by Copernicus: “There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.” -- Nicolaus Copernicus

And for @Mercy Shown, to distinguish the question of who is twisting the Bible with their interpretation, from my perspective it comes down to textual evidence (such as word studies like the ones noted above) and contextual background.

Anyone can argue that the Bible is unique with respect to certain things. But that argument for uniqueness has to come out of the textual evidence.

For example, the Bible is theologically unique. God is the 1 true God. No pagan rivals and multiple deities wrestling for control. That's a theologically unique concept on the old testament that sets it apart from things like Egyptian creation texts.

But something like animal immortality, we don't actually see that in the text, at least not in any unambiguous way. Creation being "good" for example is a relatively weak argument for animal immortality. I baked a cake last night and it was good, is my dog therefore immortal?

It would be quite unusual for the Bible to suggest such a thing based on its cultural and contextual background, in addition to things like word studies of subdue and rule indicating an environment in which there are struggles and challenges in the world.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I agree that Hebrew verbs don’t carry meaning in a vacuum. Context matters. But context includes usage patterns and cultural background, not just theological expectations about what a “very good” world must look like.

With kabash in particular, the issue is not that it can be harsh in fallen contexts, it is that every attested biblical usage involves forceful subjugation: conquest, domination, or violation. There is no unambiguous example where it means gentle stewardship. To claim that Genesis 1 is the lone exception requires positive evidence, not an appeal to the moral tone of the chapter. Saying “this isn’t a war scene” does not change the semantic force of the verb; it simply assumes that violence and death are excluded beforehand, which is the very point under dispute.

Likewise with radah. Yes, “rule” can be exercised responsibly, but in the ancient Near Eastern context, dominion language is tied to kingship, hierarchy, and control over animals and land, not to modern notions of ecological caretaking. Reading Genesis 1 as “death-free stewardship” is not drawing meaning from the ANE world; it is importing a later theological ideal and then letting that ideal redefine the verbs.

What’s happening here is circular. The text is assumed to describe a deathless creation, therefore the verbs must be softened; and the verbs are softened because the creation is assumed to be deathless. But nowhere is the text being shown to break from its cultural default, where animal mortality and human dominion, even forceful dominion, were part of an ordered, “good” world. Until that break is demonstrated, the claim of universal pre-Fall animal immortality remains an anachronistic inference, not a contextual conclusion.

What I’m asking for is not concordism or modern science in Genesis, but textual evidence that Genesis breaks from its cultural default. Without that, softening kabash and radah or assuming a death-free creation is not contextual exegesis; it is a theological conclusion being read back into the text and then used to redefine the language.

I think you’re overplaying the lexical argument by treating usage patterns as if they determine meaning in every context rather than inform it. Kabash is often forceful, but the fact that all other uses occur after the Fall, in political or military settings, already limits how much weight that carries when we’re reading a pre-Fall creation narrative. There's no other "pre-fall" context to compare it with. So saying “every attested use is violent” is accurate, but it doesn’t settle the question of what the verb means when there is no enemy, no rebellion, and no threat being subdued. That’s not special pleading; it’s acknowledging a genuinely unique narrative setting.

And I don’t think appealing to the tone of Genesis 1 is as flimsy as you’re suggesting. Tone isn’t just mood—it’s part of the context. Genesis 1 has God creating by speech, blessing life, granting food, and declaring the whole system “very good.” If kabash implied violent coercion, then the text would be introducing violence at the very moment it is affirming goodness, order, and blessing, without ever acknowledging it. That’s at least a tension that needs explaining, not something we can dismiss by saying, “That’s just how ANE kings talked.”

Same with radah. Yes, dominion language is tied to kingship in the ANE—but kingship itself isn’t monolithic. Biblical kings are repeatedly judged on how they rule, and God’s own kingship is explicitly non-exploitative. If humans are made in God’s image, their dominion is at minimum derivative of his rule, not just a copy-paste of ANE power politics. That doesn’t automatically mean “modern ecological stewardship,” but it does mean we shouldn’t flatten dominion into domination by default.

I also don’t think the argument is as circular as you’re making it sound. I’m not starting with “animals must be immortal” and then redefining the verbs. I’m starting with the broader narrative signals—no death named as part of creation, food explicitly given as plants, death introduced later as an enemy, and creation later described as groaning under corruption—and asking whether reading violence and mortality into Genesis 1 actually fits that storyline. The verbs are part of that discussion, not the sole drivers of it.

So I agree with you on this much: Genesis doesn’t go out of its way to spell out a death-free animal world. But I think the burden cuts both ways. If one wants to say Genesis comfortably includes animal death and forceful domination as part of the original “very good” order, then that too needs to be shown from the text—not just from later usage statistics or ANE parallels. Otherwise, we’re both doing theology with the text; we just disagree about which direction the story itself leans.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Your claim that “any death before the Fall distorts the biblical narrative” is precisely what needs to be demonstrated from the text and its ancient context. In the ancient Near Eastern world, animal mortality, predation, and seasonal cycles were assumed features of a good and ordered creation. If Genesis were overturning that cultural and contextual default, by teaching that animals were immortal, it would require an explicit signal and textual evidence. “Very good” is not such a signal. It is a value judgment about order and function, not a biological claim about deathlessness.

You haven’t refuted my claim; you’ve asserted a different reading and backed it with moral discomfort rather than textual evidence. In the ANE, animal death was assumed in a good creation. If Genesis meant to overturn that assumption, it would need to say so explicitly. “Very good” doesn’t do that. Treating death as inherently evil and reading that into Genesis is anachronistic, not exegetical.

I don’t think this comes down to “moral discomfort,” and I don’t think the burden of proof rests entirely where you’re placing it. ANE background is important, but it doesn’t get to override the internal logic of the biblical text itself. Genesis isn’t just another ANE creation myth; it’s the opening act of a narrative that runs straight through the Fall, the curse, Israel’s story, and ultimately Christ.

You’re right that “very good” by itself isn’t a technical biological claim. But Genesis doesn’t stand alone. Death is later identified as an intruder tied to sin (Genesis 3), an enemy (1 Corinthians 15), and something from which creation itself longs to be freed (Romans 8). That means when we go back to Genesis 1, we’re not reading it in isolation but in light of how Scripture itself interprets creation and what went wrong with it. That’s not anachronism—that’s canonical reading.

As for the claim that animal death was simply assumed in the ANE, that may be true culturally, but Genesis already breaks with its cultural environment in multiple ways: one God instead of many, creation by speech instead of violence, humans made in God’s image instead of slaves of the gods. So it’s not at all obvious that Genesis must share the ANE assumption that predation and death are intrinsic goods. In fact, the absence of any mention of death, violence, or killing in Genesis 1—paired with plant-based food for both humans and animals—is at least suggestive that something different is being presented.

So I’m not arguing that Genesis explicitly spells out “animal immortality” in modern terms. I’m arguing that the trajectory of the text treats death as a corruption of God’s good order, not a built-in feature of it. If death is later the problem Christ comes to defeat, then allowing it to be foundational to creation raises theological questions that background assumptions alone can’t resolve. At minimum, the issue isn’t settled by saying, “The ANE assumed animal death, therefore Genesis must too.” The text itself deserves more weight than that.

 

[Mercy Shown]

And for @Mercy Shown, to distinguish the question of who is twisting the Bible with their interpretation, from my perspective it comes down to textual evidence (such as word studies like the ones noted above) and contextual background.

Anyone can argue that the Bible is unique with respect to certain things. But that argument for uniqueness has to come out of the textual evidence.

For example, the Bible is theologically unique. God is the 1 true God. No pagan rivals and multiple deities wrestling for control. That's a theologically unique concept on the old testament that sets it apart from things like Egyptian creation texts.

But something like animal immortality, we don't actually see that in the text, at least not in any unambiguous way. Creation being "good" for example is a relatively weak argument for animal immortality. I baked a cake last night and it was good, is my dog therefore immortal?

It would be quite unusual for the Bible to suggest such a thing based on its cultural and contextual background, in addition to things like word studies of subdue and rule indicating an environment in which there are struggles and challenges in the world.

I think this is where our disagreement really crystallizes. You’re framing this almost entirely as a Genesis + ANE background question, but the Bible doesn’t end at Genesis 1, and Genesis itself isn’t meant to be read as a sealed unit. We’re talking about the entire biblical narrative, from creation to fall to redemption to restoration. Any reading of Genesis that ignores how later Scripture interprets creation is already incomplete.

You’re right that the Bible is theologically unique, and that uniqueness isn’t always spelled out with explicit footnotes. But it is revealed by trajectory. Death is consistently treated across Scripture as an enemy, a curse, something bound up with sin, and something God intends to undo—not as a morally neutral tool God used to patiently sculpt humanity through billions of years of suffering, predation, extinction, and disease. That’s not just a Genesis claim; it’s a Bible-wide one.

And this is where I find the position deeply problematic, not just exegetically but theologically. The story Scripture tells moves from a world God calls “very good,” through corruption and death, toward a restored creation where, as Isaiah envisions, “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain.” That future isn’t described as a radical reversal of how God has always worked—it’s presented as a healing of what went wrong. If violence, killing, and death were always God’s preferred creative tools, then Isaiah’s vision isn’t redemption; it’s contradiction.

So no, I’m not saying Genesis gives us a scientific lecture on animal immortality. I am saying that the idea God intentionally used death and violence as the engine of creation sits very awkwardly—borderline incoherently—with the Bible’s own arc, where death is the problem Christ comes to defeat, not the mechanism God celebrates. At some point, appeals to ANE assumptions and word studies can’t shield us from asking whether the theology actually hangs together.

That’s the issue I’m pressing. Not cakes, not dogs, not modern concordism—but whether the God revealed across Scripture looks like one who creates through death, or one who creates life and then moves to rescue it when death enters the picture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this has become more personal than it needs to be. I’m not evaluating your education, demanding accountability, or trying to place myself in a position of authority over you. I don’t know you, and I have no interest in policing your beliefs.


What I’ve been discussing from the beginning is a theological question—what view of God’s character follows from theistic evolution—not you as a person, your credentials, or your spiritual life. Disagreement on that point isn’t an accusation, and it isn’t a demand.


If this conversation feels upsetting or unproductive, I’m genuinely fine with letting it end here. There’s no obligation to continue, and no offense taken if you’d rather disengage.

I’m honestly not sure where “activist evangelical” came from, and no—I didn’t take that as a rhetorical flourish so much as an assumption. I’m not here to get anyone to “burn their diplomas,” and I’m certainly not trying to convert you to any version of Christianity. I’ve been pretty consistent about that. I’m pressing ideas, not credentials.


You’re right about one thing, though: religion does tend to put an edge on conversations, especially when there’s internal tension to manage. I can talk about evolution with atheists all day too, precisely because there’s no need to reconcile it with a theological narrative. The friction shows up when evolution is placed inside a Christian framework, because then questions about death, purpose, and God’s character are unavoidable. Pointing that out isn’t activism—it’s analysis.


And just to be clear, I’m not disputing your education or erudition. I don’t doubt you’ve read widely or thought deeply. But expertise doesn’t insulate a position from critique, just as disagreement isn’t a sign of ignorance or bad faith. If we can keep this about the ideas themselves—without leaning on labels or resumes—I think the conversation stays both sharper and more respectful for everyone involved.

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization, and I want to be clear that I’m not trying to misrepresent you or be disrespectful. If I’ve misunderstood a point you’ve made, I’m open to correction—that’s part of having a real discussion. But dismissing what I’ve said as “trollish” or questioning my motives doesn’t actually move the conversation forward.


If there are specific errors, misrepresentations, or fallacies you see in what I’ve written, I’m happy to address them one by one. That’s how productive dialogue works. Broad accusations about my intent or effort don’t engage the substance of the argument; they shift the focus from ideas to personalities, which isn’t helpful for either of us.


I’m here to discuss the reasoning, the theology, and the implications of the views being presented—not to score points or take shots. If we can keep the exchange centered on the arguments themselves, I think the conversation will be worth continuing.

I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree with your stated axiom more than you might think. None of us knows everything, and none of us has a God’s-eye, systematic grasp of reality. That kind of epistemic humility is healthy. Where we seem to differ is that no one operates without some axioms or starting points—even the claim “no one knows everything” is itself a philosophical axiom. The question isn’t whether we have assumptions, but whether we’re willing to examine them and follow their implications honestly.

I also don’t think the Copernicus quote quite lands where you’re aiming it. Copernicus wasn’t dismissing theological questions; he was pushing back against people misusing Scripture to shut down inquiry they didn’t understand. Fair enough. But in this discussion, I’m not appealing to the Bible to end debate—I’m appealing to the Bible to ask whether certain theological conclusions are coherent with the Christian story being told. That’s a very different move from proof-texting to silence dissent.

To borrow from a philosopher who cared deeply about this tension, Immanuel Kant once said: “Reason must subject itself to criticism in all its undertakings.” That cuts both ways. It applies to naïve biblicism, yes—but it also applies to philosophical frameworks that quietly set boundaries on what kinds of divine action or meaning are allowed before the discussion even begins.

So I’m not asking you to accept my axioms, and I’m not claiming privileged knowledge. I’m asking whether the position you hold, however provisional and open to revision, carries theological consequences that deserve scrutiny. That’s not babbling, and it’s not condemnation—it’s simply taking ideas seriously enough to examine them.

You baby boomers are always so assured of yourselves. What are your academic credentials by the way? I need to know what sort of 'other mind' I'm talking to.

While I'm at it, you've made the mistake of assuming that I have incorporated evolution INTO my theology. I have not. My position is non-concordist. In other words, as Gould would have said, I keep my theology and my geological and biological science separate from each other.

The Bible is mainly prophetic and literary in essence, whereas our human sciences are not. They each do different things and for different reasons. I do not synthesize them. Why you would assume I do without asking me first, I have no idea.

But go ahead, keep multiplying words without actually digging in with full analytic discernment.