How don't theistic evolution views contradict the bible?

[Jamsie]

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

No, it simply states that "Let the land produce...". His creation command was directed to the land, is this not true? On each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather Said something, not to have made something but rather to have commanded something. That is what Genesis states and that is what is ignored as to its meaning....

 

[NobleMouse]

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.

I agree with you and also thank you for the post ratings as well brother. I believe Genesis 2:1 picks up where scripture left off at Genesis 1:31 with God resting from creation on day 7. I don't believe He rested because He was 'tired', but as it says, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished...", He was finished with the process of creating things like, new physical matter, the genetic information for the original created kinds, the soul/spirit of all people who would descend from Adam and Eve, and so forth).

 

[PloverWing]

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.

I am going to pick at the definition of the word, yes, because I believe you are packing more meaning into the word than is actually present in the text.

If I'm hearing you correctly, I think you are asserting the doctrine of verbal inspiration and inerrancy, the belief that God caused each word of the Bible to be written as it was. As described by Harold Lindsell:

Inspiration may be defined as the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of chosen men who then wrote the Scriptures so that God got written what He wanted. The Bible in all of its parts constitutes the written Word of God to man. This Word is free from all error in its original autographs (of which more will be said in a moment). It is wholly trustworthy in matters of history and doctrine. However limited may have been their knowledge, and however much they may have erred when they were not writing sacred Scripture, the authors of Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were preserved from making factual, historical, scientific, or other errors. The Bible does not purport to be a textbook of history, science, or mathematics; yet when the writers of Scripture spoke of matters embraced in these disciplines, they did not indite error; they wrote what was true.

(Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, pp. 30-31.)

This detailed doctrine of verbal inspiration is certainly consistent with II Timothy, but it says much more than what is specifically stated in II Timothy. You are free to believe that the word "inspired" in this passage refers to the Evangelical doctrine of verbal inspiration, but this cannot be proven true merely by this single verse, since the author of II Timothy does not specify what he means by the word.

 

[PloverWing]

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.

I agree that evolution is a concept that originates from outside Scripture.

I am more hesitant about the assertion that "evolution is a concept that originates outside of the word of God", because it depends on what you mean by the word of God. If you mean Scripture, then, yes, this is saying the same thing as the previous sentence. But if you mean all the ways that God has revealed himself to us (which is how I most often use the phrase), then I disagree.

God has revealed himself to us through Scripture, but also through Jesus Christ, and also (importantly here) through his creation. The Bible does not speak about biological evolution, but the creation does. I would have to close my eyes to large portions of God's creation in order to deny biological evolution, and I would feel that I was rejecting significant portions of God's revelation in doing so.

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.

I can see that your beliefs are founded on a desire to honor God's revelation through Scripture. Even though we disagree, I thank you for your courtesy throughout this discussion, NobleMouse.

 

[JacksBratt]

I am going to pick at the definition of the word, yes, because I believe you are packing more meaning into the word than is actually present in the text.

If I'm hearing you correctly, I think you are asserting the doctrine of verbal inspiration and inerrancy, the belief that God caused each word of the Bible to be written as it was. As described by Harold Lindsell:


(Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, pp. 30-31.)

This detailed doctrine of verbal inspiration is certainly consistent with II Timothy, but it says much more than what is specifically stated in II Timothy. You are free to believe that the word "inspired" in this passage refers to the Evangelical doctrine of verbal inspiration, but this cannot be proven true merely by this single verse, since the author of II Timothy does not specify what he means by the word.

Yes, I think that the original words, written in their original languages of the original transcripts for all of the cannon... are in an exact order. Every single stroke was inspired by God through the Holy spirit. This is done with such precision that, not only do we have Christ, speaking to His disciples said:

Matthew 5:18 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

but scholars have developed computer programs that have found codes within the original texts that reveal even more precision.

You can mock all you want but a military intelligence veteran, who did not believe, wrote their own computer program and found the same results... hidden precise codes of information.

The word of God is a living and timeless work that knows no bounds when it is studied... yet simple enough for a child to comprehend it's teachings.

 

[NobleMouse]

I agree that evolution is a concept that originates from outside Scripture.

I am more hesitant about the assertion that "evolution is a concept that originates outside of the word of God", because it depends on what you mean by the word of God. If you mean Scripture, then, yes, this is saying the same thing as the previous sentence. But if you mean all the ways that God has revealed himself to us (which is how I most often use the phrase), then I disagree.

God has revealed himself to us through Scripture, but also through Jesus Christ, and also (importantly here) through his creation. The Bible does not speak about biological evolution, but the creation does. I would have to close my eyes to large portions of God's creation in order to deny biological evolution, and I would feel that I was rejecting significant portions of God's revelation in doing so.

Yes, I think (if I am following) you are referring to special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (what we observe). When I say "God's word" I am referring to special revelation - the Bible and not general revelation. I believe general revelation can "reveal" many truths and how I would make that discernment is to see if it aligns or disagrees with scripture. As some have brought up here, the Bible is silent on some things... like cells/DNA, for example. In that case, I believe general revelation is correct and would not close my eyes to their existence. Where I am skeptical of general revelation is just when it originates outside of scripture and also contradicts with what I believe is being revealed through special revelation. This is just the approach I follow and I do not think it is the only valid or "right" approach.

I can see that your beliefs are founded on a desire to honor God's revelation through Scripture. Even though we disagree, I thank you for your courtesy throughout this discussion, NobleMouse.

Thank you brother and I really appreciate your insight and perspective on this topic as well. God bless you for your faith!

 

[joshua 1 9]

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".

Now I see why you did not want to do your own research. The sun was born about 4.6 billion years ago. Not when the universe was formed as you suggest. The Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago. Not at the exact same time, but very close to the same point in time.

 

[Jamsie]

Now I see why you did not want to do your own research. The sun was born about 4.6 billion years ago. Not when the universe was formed as you suggest. The Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago. Not at the exact same time, but very close to the same point in time.

You do appear to have some difficulty with reading comprehension, so I will post again.

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

I responded: "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".

I wrote: "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."

Please show me where I suggested that as you contend -"The sun was born about 4.6 billion years ago. Not when the universe was formed as you suggest."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Please show me where I suggested that as you contend -"The sun was born about 4.6 billion years ago.

You go to google.com. Type in "how old is the sun" and 4.603 billion years well pop up on your screen. Then you can type in a google search on "how old is the earth" the results you well get is "4.543 billion years" along with a photo of the earth. While we are at it the moon is 4.53 billion years old, the solar system is 4.571 billion years old.

Now tell me why you can not go to google search and type in the search words to do this yourself???

 

[Jamsie]

You go to google.com. Type in "how old is the sun" and 4.603 billion years well pop up on your screen. Then you can type in a google search on "how old is the earth" the results you well get is "4.543 billion years" along with a photo of the earth. While we are at it the moon is 4.53 billion years old, the solar system is 4.571 billion years old.
Now tell me why you can not go to google search and type in the search words to do this yourself???

Yes, my mistake as intended only a time factor between the BB and earth. I mentioned it will take some time to look at Schroeder. I did give a brief time this AM to through the link that you provided, and read through some critiques of his theories... although most of the info is from years ago I've have been unable to find his responses to what appear as legitimate critical points. At a quick glance I find the critiques from various sources quite compelling, and it seems Schroeder refrains from addressing them.

I would also refrain from your arrogance regarding your last sentence...the Schroeder perspective is not something I am too familiar. Having read some critical response to his books and theory not sure whether it is worth pursuing too much further. At some point I will look a little deeper and decide exactly how much deeper...

 

[Darwin's Myth]

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!

There are plenty of contradictions in Genesis 1. Look at my more detailed reply and rebuttal (Comment #71) against theistic evolution and its imaginary compatibility with the Holy Bible.

 

[Queller]

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 doesn't contradict the Bible. It only contradicts a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Queller]

It's not even a fact really, it's a theory. Here is the definition of theory for anyone that has forgot or doesn't know:

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Want to know the synonyms attached to this word?

hypothesis; conjecture; speculation.

Hardly fact at all.

This is not the definition of a scientific theory such as Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution

A far more accurate definition is:

a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least get the terms right.

 

[Queller]

I would ask... who's writing is it? Is it the writing of people writing what they think or believe... understand or feel?

Or, is it the Inspired words of God Himself given to the writer through the Holy Spirit.

It is the inspired Word of God written by fallible men which was given to them by God in terms they could understand.

 

[Queller]

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.

This belief is... unusual, to say the least. Your cells can most certainly mutate, that's what cancer is.

But it isn't just your own cells that mutate that drives evolution. The DNA you inherit from your parents is not identical to theirs. There are, on average, 70 mutations in your DNA that your parents do not have.

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.

There have been incredible amounts of research done into the evolution of different sexes. Start here. Don't stop there and don't dismiss it just because it is a Wikipedia article. Use the links at the bottom to truly learn and understand how sexual (as opposed to asexual) reproduction developed.

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.

I don't know why you think that. Bodies decompose. The gas you put in your car comes from oil that formed from the decomposition of the dinosaurs.

Not to mention that humans as we know it have only been around for approximately 200,000 years. Also, we have bodies that date to almost 300,000 years ago.

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

Written symbols, language, and record keeping are a recent (relatively speaking) development. The oldest written records we have go back to the Jiahu symbols found in China that date to 66oo BC, well before the 4400 BC creation of the earth derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible.

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.

And every single one of them is subject to mutation and natural selection.

 

[Queller]

Simply put, the idea of evolution comes from outside of the Bible (regardless whether we personally believe evolution is fact, theory, or nonsense).

So what? Lots of things about the world we live in come from outside the Bible. DNA, black holes and dark matter, earth orbiting the sun, etc.

 

[NobleMouse]

So what? Lots of things about the world we live in come from outside the Bible. DNA, black holes and dark matter, earth orbiting the sun, etc.

Good to see you've been resurrected from the dead. Evolution is a lie because the Bible has already explained how life came about, and it wasn't by way of billions of years + random mutation + natural selection. Go to thread IS EVOLUTION FACT OR THEORY to see more recent discussions on this topic if interested.

 

[Acts2:38]

This is not the definition of a scientific theory such as Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution

A far more accurate definition is:

a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least get the terms right.

That is the definition of a "scientific theory".

I gave the definition of Theory, which is what evolution is, a theory.

Reading comprehension, try it and apply it before you go bashing people around with your ignorance. Maybe even try a little self control and use less aggressive tones to get your point across.

 

[Danielwright2311]

This belief is... unusual, to say the least. Your cells can most certainly mutate, that's what cancer is.

But it isn't just your own cells that mutate that drives evolution. The DNA you inherit from your parents is not identical to theirs. There are, on average, 70 mutations in your DNA that your parents do not have.

There have been incredible amounts of research done into the evolution of different sexes. Start here. Don't stop there and don't dismiss it just because it is a Wikipedia article. Use the links at the bottom to truly learn and understand how sexual (as opposed to asexual) reproduction developed.

I don't know why you think that. Bodies decompose. The gas you put in your car comes from oil that formed from the decomposition of the dinosaurs.

Not to mention that humans as we know it have only been around for approximately 200,000 years. Also, we have bodies that date to almost 300,000 years ago.

Written symbols, language, and record keeping are a recent (relatively speaking) development. The oldest written records we have go back to the Jiahu symbols found in China that date to 66oo BC, well before the 4400 BC creation of the earth derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible.

And every single one of them is subject to mutation and natural selection.

"But it isn't just your own cells that mutate that drives evolution"

My cells are my cells and will die when I die, Because my cells will die I will never mutate into another being.

My parents never mutated and there parents never mutated, death stops evolution period.

In science in order to prove anything you have to witness it right? So you can study it right?

You, nor any one has ever witnessed evolution, so by your own science understanding and laws evolution is a lie because you can not see it, as seeing is believing..

 

[Queller]

Good to see you've been resurrected from the dead. Evolution is a lie because the Bible has already explained how life came about, and it wasn't by way of billions of years + random mutation + natural selection. Go to thread IS EVOLUTION FACT OR THEORY to see more recent discussions on this topic if interested.

Do you have anything to say regarding my post that you quoted?

And, as been said probably thousands of times, evolution is both a fact and a theory.