How don't theistic evolution views contradict the bible?

[Jamsie]

Again, I cannot see any reason for confusion. It is a simple act of solid liquid separation. He took the water and earth and made dry land with a sea.
Sorry, don't see any reason for confusion.

The point is that the plain reading and structure present the following:

“And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that God’s command was the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient, certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

Gen. 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” It would be difficult not to notice that plainly the command is immediately fulfilled.

However all of the other commands do not state an immediate fulfillment. For example, “And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth...” clearly the command is not directed to immediate completion but through agency – mediate creation. God commands separation, God commands the land and the water to bring forth/produce living vegetation, fish, whales, birds, livestock, etc. No where does it say “And God said, Let there be vegetation, seed bearing trees, etc. ...” nowhere does it say “And God said, Let there be living creatures...” obviously this is avoided but rather the command/fiat is to an intermediary source. This in no way negates His creative power but rather suggests how he choose to create.

What follows the command must be explanatory or parenthetical because it is clear that "God spoke" was the sole operative. "And it was so." clearly states that what God commands will come to fruition. Again, what then follows where stated "God made" can be interpreted by the question "how" and answered by his command through mediate creation.

The structure of the creation account follows a distinct pattern; The command, the fulfillment (And it was so), the explanatory note/post fulfillment, and the day.

So to me a plain reading suggests much more ...

 

[joshua 1 9]

Since the bible mentions nothing of this process

That is not true at all. You should read the first 32 verses in the Bible. There are hundreds of thousands of books in the Library of Harvard University that explains what those 32 verses are talking about.

"In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out."

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[Marvin Knox]

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)

No - it is not a proven fact.

No scientist worth his salt believes in macro evolution.

Virtually every scientist who taught evolution in the way I was taught in school has since rejected what they taught.

Most scientists know that evolution is not fact but a theory and not a very good theory at that.

So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution?

You can't.

God created everything perfect and it fell into imperfection due to the sin of the first man.

Death and chaos is the stock in trade of the evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is incompatible with the way the scriptures tell us that death and chaos came upon this earth and it is incompatible with the way death and chaos will finally be eradicated through the second and last Adam.

 

[aiki]

No, evolution - that is, macro-evolution - is not a proven fact, whatever you've come to believe. And as discoveries in other fields of scientific research are advancing, the ToE is increasingly coming under criticism. When you say evolution is an established fact, you are communicating more of a cultural bias than a scientific reality.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I would say Scripture and Evolution, no matter on what scale are compatible.

Read:
Can an Orthodox Christian accept evolution?

and

Towards An Orthodox View Of Creation And Evolution

If you are interested in an Orthodox perspective much better than I can possibly explain.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Gen. 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” It would be difficult not to notice that plainly the command is immediately fulfilled.

Not so plain because we already had darkness. Humans are unable to distinguish color in conditions of either high brightness or darkness. In verse 4: "He separated the light from the darkness." All of this took place on the first day and the first day could have been a very long period of time. You can not have a first day until day one ends and day two begins. In terms of physics, an object is said to be dark when it absorbs photons. We deal with black and white, this is the subtraction color theory. If you want to filter the light then this is the additive color theory. This took place on day two.

The point is we do not have black and white, darkness and light, night and day so much as a separation between them. Complete darkness is when the sun is more than 18 degrees below the horizon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)
Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution? Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?

It's like this, Vitality: I can give you a dime-a-dozen answer (and essentially elaborate on something that is actually fairly complex and only partially open to my full knowledge), or I can direct you to professional treatments of the topic, especially since this is best left to an intensive, extended reading of the literature written by professionals who actually handle the inherent issues therein, issues pertaining to ancient cosmogony, ancient literature, and ancient mythology and religion.

In a very summary fashion, and in relation to what we think of as paleological history, I'll just say that all God 'had' to do, at minimum, was to give His prophets an inspiration to write about the past as best as they understood how to for their times and within the paradigms in which they lived and grappled; what they knew for their time was the currency of thought by which they attempted to understand the nature of the world. To require more than that of the Biblical writers is for us to begin to traipse in a philosophical fashion that will bring up more questions than the Biblical writers ever intended to answer, particularly since the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook.

Instead of bashing the heads of evolution and the bible together and causing everyone a major concussion, I think it's wiser to see their relationship as complementary rather than as competitive in nature.

 

[Jamsie]

Not so plain because we already had darkness. Humans are unable to distinguish color in conditions of either high brightness or darkness. In verse 4: "He separated the light from the darkness." All of this took place on the first day and the first day could have been a very long period of time. You can not have a first day until day one ends and day two begins. In terms of physics, an object is said to be dark when it absorbs photons. We deal with black and white, this is the subtraction color theory. If you want to filter the light then this is the additive color theory. This took place on day two.

The point is we do not have black and white, darkness and light, night and day so much as a separation between them. Complete darkness is when the sun is more than 18 degrees below the horizon.

Compare verse 3 with all of the other commands, 1:3 expresses immediacy while the others inform mediate and extended time.... that is the point. So how do you distinguish vs. 3 from vs.14?

 

[dqhall]

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)
Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution? Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?

My theory is the Bible contains some fact and some fiction. I believe Jesus could have been referring to the flood of Noah as a story and not as an actual event. The moral of the story was that God is prescient and may warn people in advance. I believe God exists as a being of higher intelligence. I do not worship the Bible.

A number of species survived for long periods of time:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384

Others morphed into other things or died out.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false ..... HUH? So cell division can't happen because it isn't mentioned in the Bible?? No such things as bacteria or ultraviolet radiation or electricity because the Bible doesn't mention them?? Well, of course the Bible doesn't mention biological evolution, since it wasn't discovered until 1,700 years after the biblical texts were written! And even if it had been discovered there would be no reason for the biblical writers to mention it since it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the Bible, which is God's plan of salvation. The Bible does mention that God formed the first human from inorganic matter. It just doesn't describe the entire process, which took place over many millions of years. Since we know that biological evolution is an undeniable fact, from the hundreds of millions of pieces of supporting evidence, it cannot possibly conflict with the Bible, since the Bible is God's truth, and truth cannot conflict with truth. How God formed the human body from inorganic matter is irrelevant. He did so! And then "breathed into them" spiritual life and an immortal soul, thereby making them fully human.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Compare verse 3 with all of the other commands, 1:3 expresses immediacy while the others inform mediate and extended time.... that is the point. So how do you distinguish vs. 3 from vs.14?

Vs 3 talks about the earth and this is the subtraction color theory, the one we use when we mix color into paint. In verse 4 and 14 you are talking about the additive color theory. This is where we use gels to filter the light. The atmosphere has an effect on light. Even the water in the ocean distorts light. Doing underwater photography is difficult.

The point is that science helps us to better understand our Bible. Gerald Schroeder has a PhD in physics and his understanding helps him to better understand the Bible.

We know from science that the earth and the sun were created or formed at about the same time. So we need to approach the Bible with this understanding.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No such things as bacteria or ultraviolet radiation or electricity because the Bible doesn't mention them??

The Bible does mention them. Somewhere in Genesis chapter one you will find a word that has infinite meaning. Look at the very first word in the Bible: Beginning. IF we spend our whole life to study the meaning of the word beginning at the end of our life we would only be beginning to understand. God is the Alpha and the Omega. He knows the end from the beginning. David tells us that God writes the book of our life before we are even born while we are knitted together in our mothers womb. God gives us our gifts, talents and abilities and we need to use what He gives us to bring Him honor and glory. So we have our calling and He has a plan and purpose for our life. Samuel was called at a young age to become a prophet. There are things that happen in our life that we may not understand but they are intended to prepare us for our calling.

 

[Jamsie]

Vs 3 talks about the earth and this is the subtraction color theory, the one we use when we mix color into paint. In verse 4 and 14 you are talking about the additive color theory. This is where we use gels to filter the light. The atmosphere has an effect on light. Even the water in the ocean distorts light. Doing underwater photography is difficult.

The point is that science helps us to better understand our Bible. Gerald Schroeder has a PhD in physics and his understanding helps him to better understand the Bible.

We know from science that the earth and the sun were created or formed at about the same time. So we need to approach the Bible with this understanding.

Well, I would have to read up on Schroeder at some point and in a quick perusal found many critics of his theories also. I'm not sure how color theory necessarily fits, nor how one can assert that the earth and sun were created at about the same time when science puts the universe at about 13 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion. As noted in my original post I am looking at the Genesis creation account from a plain reading perspective, knowing that specific details are not the essential biblical mandate.

 

[akaDaScribe]

There are really only 2 contradictions.

1. Plants came before animals
2. Humans were not made like other living creatures.

I happen to be of the opinion that evolution may be a partial truth.

Some form of plant life may have formed first and they just haven't figured it out yet. Makes sense from a food supply perspective at least.

God did really form man out of the dust.

It says that everything else came forth from the earth and multiplied. So its entirely possible that plants and animals evolved, but people were made differently.

 

[PloverWing]

Just philosophically speaking - there had to be a first sin though, right?

Thank you for the reference to Steve Boyd.

I don't know whether the development of a full moral sense was gradual among the hominids, or whether it appeared suddenly in one generation, but you could call the first person with moral awareness "Eve" or "Adam" (depending on their gender).

Do you think Jesus may not have known about ancient history? From reading John 1:1-3, I believe Jesus was with the Father in the beginning and all things were made through Jesus.

I agree: Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. However, being fully incarnate means that he took on a human mind as well as a human body, with all the limitation that entails. While on earth, Jesus knew what a human being of his time would know, and he knew what the Father revealed to him (as a prophet might receive special revelations from God), but he was not omniscient while on earth. As Gregory of Nazianzus observed during the Apollinarian controversy, "that which is not assumed is not redeemed" -- that is, for Jesus to redeem us entirely, body and mind, he had to take on both a human body and a human mind. While on earth, Jesus coped with the human mental limitations that we all cope with.

 

[Deadworm]

Vitality, in my view, it is ludicrous to literally believe:
that God would have preferred that humans not have disobeyed so that they could become like God learning the difference between good and evil (so 3:22);
that vegetation was created on Earth "the Day before" the creation of the Sun!
that snakes crawl because the talking Snake in the garden sinned (3:14);
that men need to work only because of Adam's punishment for eating forbidden fruit (3:17-18);
that women must painfully bear children only because Eve sinned (3:16);
that Eve was created from Adam's rib (2:22)

So I need to accept principles like these 4 to enable me to be a devout Christian without abandoning any pretense to intellectual integrity:

(1) The starting point for an interpretation of Scripture that comes closest to a prooftext for theistic evolution is Proverbs 8:30-31, which should be quoted from the New Jerusalem Bible which is famous for paying the closest attention to subtle Hebrew nuance:

"30. I [Wisdom] was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,31. at play everywhere on his earth, delighting to be with the children of men."

(a) Here Lady Wisdom personified speaks as if She is a distinct divine Person from Yahweh. Indeed, this Personification explains the earliest explicit formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (180 AD), who identifies "the Trinity" as "God, God's Word (= Christ), and Wisdom." Lady Wisdom functions in a similar way to "Mother Nature."

(b) This biblical concept of Lady Wisdom's role in Creation as divine play seems compatible with seemingly non-purposive exploratory creativity, evolutionary dead ends, and mass extinctions because it is a concept that seems compatible with a concept of God Who does not micro-manage the universe He sets in creative motion.

(2) The language used for the creation of vegetative and animal life is "Let the Earth bring forth (Gen. 1:11, 24)." The mythical background of this expression is the Ancient Near Eastern concept of Mother Earth, an earth goddess. The theological point is that God does not simply speak vegetative and animal life into existence; rather, God somehow allows Mother Earth to bring life forth by an unspecified process. Like Lady Wisdom or Mother Nature, Mother Earth serves as the means by which Creation happens.

(3) Genesis 1:2-3 can be poetically interpreted as compatible with the Big Bang: "A wind from God moved over the face of the waters [= the void]; and God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." ancients had no concept of the vacuum of outer space; so "the waters" was their expression for outer space. The divine "wind" implies movement or expansion in space resulting in light.

(4) A literalist concept of 6 24-hour days of Creation followed by a 24-day of Sabbath rest is absurd for at least 2 reasons:
(a) OT scholars recognize that the Priestly Creation story (1:1-2:4a) was composed as a poetic liturgical piece to justify Sabbath rest. Hence the repetitive phrases like "And God said...And it was so...And God saw that it was good. Evening came, morning followed, the first (second, etc.) day." Notice that the latter phrase is omitted for the 7th day. This omission in itself means that we are still living in the 7th day! There is no boundary between a nonexistent phrase like "Evening came, morning followed, the 7th day" and the subsequent life and progress of Creation. This fact justifies a rejection of the otherwise absurd notion of 7 24-hour days in Genesis 1.
(b) Our 24-hour days refer to the Earth's rotation as it revolves around the Sun. But the Sun is not created until the 4th day of Creation. So the concept of 24-hour days is absurd with reference to the first 3 days of creation. In any case, the Hebrew word "yom" is not always used elsewhere to designate our 24-hour days.

 

[Neogaia777]

What if the creation account, and some of Genesis is kinda like John's revelation in the book of Revelation...?

Like a vision or a dream...?

That at some point in the book, makes the transition from a vision or dream, to what we understand is/as actual reality...? (as we know it anyway)...

How would you interpret it then...?

How would you see or think of it then...?

I think Genesis and the creation account is not a lie, just like Revelation is not a lie...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I do not see many, if any, conflicts between ToE and the creation account, even when trying to be taken almost, or nearly literally, but do believe much of it is metaphor or symbolic of something far greater also, kinda like Revelation... And it is mainly in that (interpretation) that it's true meaning lies...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I posted this also:

Does Genesis 1, contradict or not jive with, Genesis 2 on...?

And when God "made" the great luminaries, they were already there, but not revealed or were able to be seen by the surface of the earth yet, because of dark, thick, black cloud cover, So, "made" is not really the correct word, but "revealed" or uncovered is...

Where it talks about souls, or creatures, or beasts or monsters, it could be talking about spirits, in fact, the whole creation account could be actually talking about another kind of spiritual reality, or realm even... Revelation more than likely is, why not the creation account, and the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden Paradise (called Heaven in revelation) all of that...?

The account was more than likely revealed to someone, or some humans, in the form of a vision or dream, that they considered so profound, and so very far "ahead of it's time", that it had to be from God, or very great God... (which I think they are right, and that it was and is)...

It needs to be thought of in that way IMO, just like Revelation is...

God Bless!

 

[George64]

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)
Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution? Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?

Lol...I remember reading the Bible getting the steps of evolution right even though written 3,500 years ago. Back when they believe earth was flat, or earth was center of universe, etc... amazing