How don't theistic evolution views contradict the bible?

[JacksBratt]

The author of II Timothy does not spell out for us exactly what he means by "inspired". "Inspired" does not necessarily mean "dictated".

On II Peter 1:20-21: I agree that the Old Testament prophets were speaking messages that God revealed to them. Note that prophecy is not the only kind of literature contained in the Old Testament.

On avoiding private interpretation: I agree that it is important to listen to the collected wisdom of the church when interpreting prophecy. I've seen people go off in crazy directions when they failed to do this.

Seriously? You are going to pick at the definition of a word? "Inspired", an English translation of a Greek or Hebrew word? Your going to base your acceptance or skepticism of a scripture, in the canon, based on how you define one word?

May I suggest that this is what was exactly what was meant?

Original Word: θεόπνευστος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: theopneustos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-op'-nyoo-stos)
Short Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God
Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God.

 

[JacksBratt]

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 ...

I believe that each section is terminated by something to the respect of

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Which closes the creation command, with the event being accomplished and then goes on to state the end of the day and beginning of a new one..


The way I see it is that if you want to ignore the obvious creation that is being done, and completed, each day.... then you will.

 

[JacksBratt]

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...?

Then, I believe, the Bible would have stated it as such.... just like it does for Revelation.

 

[Jamsie]

I believe that each section is terminated by something to the respect of
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
Which closes the creation command, with the event being accomplished and then goes on to state the end of the day and beginning of a new one..

The way I see it is that if you want to ignore the obvious creation that is being done, and completed, each day.... then you will.

I'm not questioning that but isn't it obvious that God's spoken command was the sole operative means of creation? The mediate command was given and followed by "And it was so"...that would logically be the completion in terms of God's work. It would then be that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?
​

“And God made...” statements are not the operative commands, but an explanation of results. So that "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed ... God saw that it was good." must be explanatory/post-fulfillment otherwise God's spoken commands were neither sufficient and false according to the other Bible passages. And again the verse explicitly reiterates the mediate agency as to God commanding the earth/land...how is this not a created process?

It seems obvious that on each day a process is invoked by the Word of God. So as in for example Gen. 1:25 it is clear that "God made..." is not the operative means of creation but rather the post fulfillment brought about by the fiat. Clearly there is a distinction between day 1 and all of the following command days. Gen. 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light and there was light". Clearly this command was immediate, no "And it was so". All subsequent days follow the same structure - Command/fiat, fulfillment, explanatory/post fulfillment, day.

The question should arise that given verse 3 why would not the subsequent acts state plainly "And God said, Let there be vegetation: seed bearing plants and trees.... and there was vegetation..." or "And God said, Let there be living creatures... and there was living creatures..."? Rather "And it was so" is the fulfillment simply because what God commands will become manifest. Six days of commands...

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm not questioning that but isn't it obvious that God's spoken command was the sole operative means of creation? The mediate command was given and followed by "And it was so"...that would logically be the completion in terms of God's work. It would then be that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?
​

“And God made...” statements are not the operative commands, but an explanation of results. So that "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed ... God saw that it was good." must be explanatory/post-fulfillment otherwise God's spoken commands were neither sufficient and false according to the other Bible passages. And again the verse explicitly reiterates the mediate agency as to God commanding the earth/land...how is this not a created process?

It seems obvious that on each day a process is invoked by the Word of God. So as in for example Gen. 1:25 it is clear that "God made..." is not the operative means of creation but rather the post fulfillment brought about by the fiat. Clearly there is a distinction between day 1 and all of the following command days. Gen. 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light and there was light". Clearly this command was immediate, no "And it was so". All subsequent days follow the same structure - Command/fiat, fulfillment, explanatory/post fulfillment, day.

The question should arise that given verse 3 why would not the subsequent acts state plainly "And God said, Let there be vegetation: seed bearing plants and trees.... and there was vegetation..." or "And God said, Let there be living creatures... and there was living creatures..."? Rather "And it was so" is the fulfillment simply because what God commands will become manifest. Six days of commands...

I understand what you are explaining. However, God "sees that it is good" it is complete, all the different types of plants are created.... then the day is over..

He doesn't produce one plant... set everything in motion and let it evolve expecting more to be seen down the road.

You can imagine that into your belief... I just don't see any reason for it not to be taken exactly as it is written... He created all the vegetation.... the day was done.... it was good.... next day....

 

[Danielwright2311]

How is Evolution a proven fact?? Give me five minutes and I can prove to you its not a fact, deal?

 

[PaulCyp1]

The Bible says God formed the first human "from the dust of the Earth". It doesn't describe the method He used, or the length of time involved. What matters is that once He brought the first biological humans into existence, He then "breathed into them" spiritual life and an immortal soul, at which time they became fully human by a direct act of God. Truth cannot conflict with truth. Since Evolution is a well understood natural process, it cannot conflict with the biblical account of creation.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Bible says God formed the first human "from the dust of the Earth". It doesn't describe the method He used, or the length of time involved. What matters is that once He brought the first biological humans into existence, He then "breathed into them" spiritual life and an immortal soul, at which time they became fully human by a direct act of God. Truth cannot conflict with truth. Since Evolution is a well understood natural process, it cannot conflict with the biblical account of creation.

Well it does say that He did it in one day and that it was only a man... so you still don't have the ability to procreate until He made Eve from the rib... Kinda shoots the whole idea of anything else down.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I fell knowledge not shared is useless, so I need to write as much as I can so here I go.

Evolution is the process of cells mutating into a better existence for survival.

So we need to cover facts against mutating cells to prove the whole Evolution topic a lie, that's easy to do.

facts

1. We all die, death proves no mutation, I will never mutate or my cells will never mutate as I will die before I can mutate. If mutation to survive takes millions of years, then it can not be based on survival as there is nothing to survive. By the time my cells, your cells or any one cells can know it needs to change to survive, Death stops that. Dna does not mutate or change, this is fact already.

2. Men and woman, not just all man or all woman, it takes two. If Evolution was true then we all would evolve into the same beings and same sex, there would be no reason for two sexes. Think about it, the first ever cell mutates into its own human, that human is the only human to evolve. then here did the second sex come from? Did the already evolved human male or female birth a opposite human? Impossible.

3. The grave problem, Millions of years of Evolution, the world would have billions of billions of grave sites. To many to speak of. but we only have about 7 thousand years of death records and grave sites. there would be mass graves of dead people, billions of mutated skeletons buried.

4.Recorded history would have been millions of years ago, there would be recorded history records every where.

5.Complex dna and cells, The human body is derived of billions of cells and dna strands. These cells are very complex in design. Not mutation. Each cell holds tiny machines that construct them to function. By the way , each cell is alive, a living cell. Imagine having billions of living creatures living in you, well, you do.

 

[Jamsie]

I understand what you are explaining. However, God "sees that it is good" it is complete, all the different types of plants are created.... then the day is over..
He doesn't produce one plant... set everything in motion and let it evolve expecting more to be seen down the road.
You can imagine that into your belief... I just don't see any reason for it not to be taken exactly as it is written... He created all the vegetation.... the day was done.... it was good.... next day....

On the sixth day (vs. 25) "And God saw that it was good". However, the day was not "complete" so that His statement was not one of completion but of the process he put into motion. Again, why wouldn't the scripture be "And God said, Let there be vegetation: seed bearing plants and trees.... and there was vegetation..." or "And God said, Let there be living creatures... and there was living creatures..."? We know that today life is a process ... yet why do we deny that in the beginning He created that process?

My belief is that the fiat was All Sufficient because clearly and plainly the command is not to plants, trees, animals, sea life but to the matter from which life comes forth, that is undeniably clear. Ecc. 3:20 "...from dust..." both animal and mankind.

I'm not trying to persuade as much as to defend my position. I think there exists sufficient room for reasoned interpretation, and the very direction of the command allows for that. Blessings.........

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

 

[NobleMouse]

Lots of great input from everyone on both sides (creation and theistic evolution). A couple of observations I see (none of which is a 'This just in : News flash' but wanted to see if we all generally agree regarding the following):

In short
The purpose here is just to affirm that evolution, whether by name or in concept, does not originate from within scripture and scripture is not silent as to our origin, therefore evolution is a concept that originates outside of the word of God. You can stop here if you don't like long-winded posts.

In long :]
1 - So far (subject to change), it seems to have been established in this still relatively short thread that evolution (or a process that sounds like a progressive development of life over a very long period of time) is not positively affirmed anywhere in the Bible. By this, I mean that there are no words that directly convey what evolutionary theory asserts. That said, if someone has a scripture reference and just hasn't chimed in yet, please do so - this would be beneficial for everyone regardless of our position on the topic. To clarify, and I think we're all on the same page here, by 'evolution' we're talking about where say a single-celled organism eventually evolved into humans over the course of billions of years as is believed by some to be demonstrated by the fossil record and recent genetic research.

2 - In contrast to #1 above, the Bible does positively affirm a process by which life came to be (generally termed 'creation') as occurring over a period of 6 days. Regardless of whether we believe 'yom' with reference to evening and morning means something other than a 24-hr day, or 'beginning' means an infinite period of time, whether the whole account is just a poem, etc... these are the words, this is what they say (whether in Hebrew, Greek (Septuagent) or an English translation), and six 24-hr days (with a finite beginning and a finite conclusion) seems to be what was understood and observed as the 'process' of creation by the Hebrews around the time the creation account was written (the support I use for this is Exodus 20:11).

3 - Being that the Bible does not positively affirm evolution, yet does positively affirm a process that is described much differently (#2 above), it seems to me that the idea of a billions-of-years progressive development of life comes from outside of the Bible. This is not to say that there have not been studies on scripture that were intended to tie theological truths and biblical doctrine to conclusions made from historical origins scientific research, nor that there weren't early church fathers or even contemporary theologians that feel the creation account represents something other than what it says. Simply put, the idea of evolution comes from outside of the Bible (regardless whether we personally believe evolution is fact, theory, or nonsense).


In the interest of being transparent to all here, my personal belief is that the creation account means what it says. I believe that Jesus affirms its truth as well as do various authors of both the OT and NT. I also believe that while the Bible does not give a specific age to the earth (and all of creation as a whole), I believe the vast majority of what is positively affirmed in the Bible points to a relatively 'recent' creation - less than 10,000 years. I believe this on the basis of faith, but also feel there is sufficient scientific evidence, which continues to grow, that supports this view.

That said, I do recognize that some fellow brothers and sisters here have a different view - that God's method for creating life is what we call evolution today, and that this happened (and is continuing to happen) over billions of years throughout earth's very long history. I think we can all agree to disagree on this matter, so my intent here is just to establish where our worldviews originate. I would assert that my personal worldview originates from scripture and that this is not a reading-between-the-lines reinterpretation of scripture; this is what it says. I also think that evolutionary theory is contradictory to what scripture states, but I want to try setting my bias off to the side and genuinely seek to understand if those here who do believe in evolution would agree that the concept of evolution is not from scripture.

 

[JacksBratt]

On the sixth day (vs. 25) "And God saw that it was good". However, the day was not "complete" so that His statement was not one of completion but of the process he put into motion. Again, why wouldn't the scripture be "And God said, Let there be vegetation: seed bearing plants and trees.... and there was vegetation..." or "And God said, Let there be living creatures... and there was living creatures..."? We know that today life is a process ... yet why do we deny that in the beginning He created that process?

My belief is that the fiat was All Sufficient because clearly and plainly the command is not to plants, trees, animals, sea life but to the matter from which life comes forth, that is undeniably clear. Ecc. 3:20 "...from dust..." both animal and mankind.

I'm not trying to persuade as much as to defend my position. I think there exists sufficient room for reasoned interpretation, and the very direction of the command allows for that. Blessings.........

You are quite free to believe what you believe... However, personally, I see that, from the scriptures, God created all the different types of plants, and saw that it was good. It does not say that He created a plant and then billions of years later it had branched into many millions of different kinds.

It simply states that He created them.... it was good.... on to the next day. It has no indication of not being complete.

 

[Jamsie]

I am not going to do your research for you. If it is not important enough for you to look into it yourself.

I do not believe that I asked you to, what I said was - "Well, I would have to read up on Schroeder at some point and in a quick perusal found many critics of his theories also." Having other "irons in the fire" should suggest the reason for "at some point".

 

[Jamsie]

.