How is Theistic-evo. compatible with the bible?

[iac]

Okay Mr. Cheese I suppose you are right.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

\

No, I was not aware. I didn't think my doubt that the Bible supports theistic-evolution would violate a rule. Oh, rule 1 is flamming? I was not flamming thank you very much. I was and am not harassing, insulting, belittling, threatening, or flamming. I was only stating my opinion.

No. The potential breaking of Rule 1 is saying that "I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity" and thereby implying that theistic evolutionists are not Christians.

And I don't care for your reasons for believing in evolution but this thread is about how it can be mixed with the Bible and still be Christianity.

And maybe you don't care. But whether a given other poster cares about something is not a criterion for posting a message.

I am sure I am wrong but is there only one "hint" in the Bible that supports theistic-evolution? I just read the whole chapter of Gen. 1 and I couldn't find a single verse where God said,"Let the earth bring forth." So either it is my Bible translation or you are wrong on that. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give me the verse. I am very doubtfull of someone who says it is in the Bible but doesn't have a verse.

Genesis 1

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Three times the formula is used. Each time the earth or the waters bringing forth is equated with God creating. The point is here is not that Genesis 1 teaches evolution - it doesn't; it's not concerned with science - but rather that the Biblical concept of what it means for God to create is compatible with an evolutionary process being used.

And Mr Cheese is right. I don't like discussing contentious issues on the New Christians board, but when someone puts unnecessary stumbling blocks in someone's way, someone has to remove them.

 

[seebs]

I think a study of what Jews and early Christians (such as Augustine) taught about creation would help a lot. They focus a great deal on moral messages, and frequently observe that it's obviously not six 24-hour days.

 

[iac]

I can't get rid of my post. I accedentally pressed the post button twice.

 

[iac]

No. The potential breaking of Rule 1 is saying that "I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity" and thereby implying that theistic evolutionists are not Christians.



And maybe you don't care. But whether a given other poster cares about something is not a criterion for posting a message.





Three times the formula is used. Each time the earth or the waters bringing forth is equated with God creating. The point is here is not that Genesis 1 teaches evolution - it doesn't; it's not concerned with science - but rather that the Biblical concept of what it means for God to create is compatible with an evolutionary process being used.

And Mr Cheese is right. I don't like discussing contentious issues on the New Christians board, but when someone puts unnecessary stumbling blocks in someone's way, someone has to remove them.

First of all when I said I would continue saying I meant I would hold to my opinion so therefore it was not flamming.
Second of all you shouldn't have even talked about why you accept evolution because it has nothing to do with this thread and I believe it should be considered spamming.
Third of all I did not place a stumbling block. I think you're going over the line there pal. You have no right or place to say something that is insulting and untrue.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

First of all when I said I would continue saying I meant I would hold to my opinion so therefore it was not flamming.

The issue is not flaming per se - the issue is implying other members (e.g. me) are not Christians because they accept evolution.

Second of all you shouldn't have even talked about why you accept evolution because it has nothing to do with this thread and I believe it should be considered spamming.

Nope. Don't see how you'd consider it spamming. It was very germaine to the discussion because the question was raised as to where the Bible actually teaches evolution. Of course, it doesn't. The reasons for accepting it are others and I explained what they were.

Third of all I did not place a stumbling block. I think you're going over the line there pal. You have no right or place to say something that is insulting and untrue.

Boot's on the other foot now? I do consider the teaching that one must accept a literalistic creation interpretation to be a Christian puts a massive stumbling block in people's way - it would certainly have prevented me from seriously considering the faith. The difference is that my statement is not in breach of forum rules as far as I can see.

 

[iac]

I did not say if someone believed in theistic-evolution they can't be Christians. I was only saying it is not Biblical (which it isn't) and the reasons I believe people accept it.

And evolution isn't a fact you know. It isn't proven nor will it be proven.

And again I was saying not you can't be a Christian if you believe it. If you want to be Biblical you can't but you can also stradle the fence as they say.

The Bible clearly says the earth was made in six days. What more do you want when the Bible says six days?! And no six does not mean six billion. If it did the Bible would have said so. To prove this I will quote from the Bible. Gen 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
There's the first day right there. It was the evening and the morning not billions of them. How much more clear do you want it?

 

[Amleto]

And again I was saying not you can't be a Christian if you believe it. If you want to be Biblical you can't but you can also stradle the fence as they say.

ie if one is a Christian searching for the truth in the Bible, one is not allowed to accept evolution? That is tantamount to saying believers of theistic evolution do not accept the Word of God.

Surely to be Christian you have to accept the Word of God?

It looks to me like you have yourself in a pickle.

 

[iac]

ie if one is a Christian searching for the truth in the Bible, one is not allowed to accept evolution? That is tantamount to saying believers of theistic evolution do not accept the Word of God.

Surely to be Christian you have to accept the Word of God?

It looks to me like you have yourself in a pickle.

Lol! A pickle? Not even close.


Some may not know much of the Bible. Maybe they don't have a Bible and they don't know that it is not Biblical. You can still be a Christian. Now let's say you do know what they Bible says like my above post on Gen 1. You can still be a Christian but may be either still ignorant or just disobediant. And I'm not just talking about theistic-evolution this goes for a whole lot of things.


Let's say you believe people become angles when they die. That is clearly untrue according to the Bible but you can still be a Christian. See what I'm saying? I'm clearly not in a "pickle."

 

[Amleto]

Lol! A pickle? Not even close.


Some may not know much of the Bible. Maybe they don't have a Bible and they don't know that it is not Biblical. You can still be a Christian. Now let's say you do know what they Bible says like my above post on Gen 1. You can still be a Christian but may be either still ignorant or just disobediant. And I'm not just talking about theistic-evolution this goes for a whole lot of things.


Let's say you believe people become angles when they die. That is clearly untrue according to the Bible but you can still be a Christian. See what I'm saying? I'm clearly not in a "pickle."

What if I study Genesis and decide that that it is perfectly compatible with evolution?

Now you call me ignorant or disobediant.

Would you allow me to take the spade out of your hands?

 

[iac]

If you can be completely honest in your study then no. But you see you can study Genesis all your life and you'll never find it supports evolution. Go ahead be my guest. If you do an honest study and come back to me and say that it is compatible then I'll be okay with that. I would also need a reason.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh. I see IAC. I'm either ignorant or disobedient. Thank you so much. Who set you up as judge over your brothers? Why do some conservatives have this inbuilt need to denigrate the intellectual honesty, faith or obedience of other Christians?

Ignorant - Not Guilty. I know as well as you what the early chapters of Genesis say. I demonstrated earlier in this thread that I knew what Genesis 1 actually said better than you - "let the earth bring forth", remember? The dispute is what they mean.

Disobedient - Not Guilty. I have not seen any command "Thou shalt take the early chapters of Genesis literally". What I do see are very good reasons for not doing so - and some of those reasons are in the very text itself - two contradictory creation stories, trees with symbolic fruit, a man and woman with generic names - "Man" and "Mother of all". To me this screams out "symbolic narrative!" in letters ten feet tall.

I expand on this in my essay here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm - which I put online to save reinventing the wheel every time I'm attaked by literalists.

 

[iac]

You obviously missed my point completely. Did you even read my above post to Amleto? And "Let the earth bring forth" is about the most redicules argument for theistic-evolution I've ever heard. If you or anyone could come to me with a reasonable argument of why the Bible supports it then I will consider it and stop arguing.

So you are saying the Adam and Eve are symbolic? That pretty much destroys a whole lot of the Bible. In fact it would destroy the Bible completely! It would mean Adam and Eve didn't commit sin and we therefore didn't inherit a sin nature and in result wouldn't need Jesus Christ to save us from our sins! This is one of the reasons I fight theistic-evolution with all my heart! And another reason I fight it is because it would mean God is cruel. Isn't evolution the survival of the fittest? Did God just let everything evolve and sit back and watch the show? I don't think so.


If you can't come up with something better than "Let the earth bring forth" then don't bother me.

 

[Amleto]

So you are saying the Adam and Eve are symbolic? That pretty much destroys a whole lot of the Bible. In fact it would destroy the Bible completely! It would mean Adam and Eve didn't commit sin and we therefore didn't inherit a sin nature and in result wouldn't need Jesus Christ to save us from our sins!

If Adam and Eve are taken to be symbolic then one can still interpret that our nature is sinful, and thus a need for Christ is still evident. Your argument is flawed.

And another reason I fight it is because it would mean God is cruel.

Why so?

 

[iac]

It's not nearly as flawed as your's.

Why so? Because evolution is the survival of the fittest. The weak die and the strong live.

There is no reason why Adam and Eve would be symbolic nor the six day creation. You're just shifting the Bible the way it fits you better.

 

[iac]

Also Cain and Able are two of the many sons of Adam and Eve. So if Adam and Eve are symbolic that would mean Cain and Able are too and if they are then that would mean Seth is. So if Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, and Seth are symbolic that would mean Enos is and his descendents and on and on and on. You see it doesn't make sense for Adam and Eve to be symbolic. Seth's descendent eventually lead up to Christ and if Seth is symbolic are you going to go as far to say the Christ is too? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Amleto]

It's not nearly as flawed as your's.

That has as much validity to it as a five year old's argument;
"Is too."
"Is not."
"Is too."
because it contains no justification.

Why so? Because evolution is the survival of the fittest. The weak die and the strong live.

Thats what animals do. Humans do things just as bad (and worse) but does that make God cruel?

There is no reason why Adam and Eve would be symbolic nor the six day creation. You're just shifting the Bible the way it fits you better.

Despite the two contradictory accounts already pointed out by Karl? Despite the all encompassing names Adam and Eve?

 

[iac]

That's what animals do huh? Did you not read that God watches over the sparrows? God will not allow even the smallest creature to die unless it is in His will.

 

[iac]

Now instead of arguing about Adam and Eve could you please explain to me how the six days could be symbolic? "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Black and white. Clear as day. Right there. "And the evening and the morning were the second day." So on and on. Now if the six is meant to be six billion or whatever explain to me why it would say that. Evening and the morning make up just one day as it clearly says in the Bible.

 

[Amleto]

That's what animals do huh? Did you not read that God watches over the sparrows? God will not allow even the smallest creature to die unless it is in His will.

Well even you have agreed that evolution within a species occurs. You have also said that evolution would make God cruel.

Thus by your own premises God is cruel. You are tripping over yourself.