How is Theistic-evo. compatible with the bible?

[Amleto]

Please note that my question is not what evidence there is for 6day/theistic evolution, but rather how can evolution in any form be compatible with the bible?

Something happened a few months ago that made me belive that there was a Christian God, but I don't think that I can accept that evolution didn't happen. It appears to me that for the bible to hold weight one must accept that the creation took place in 6 days.

I am thus left in my current quandry, and if one part of the bible seems to fail for me then this unvalidates it (for me) as a whole

And then there's the flood, but I guess that's another thread...

 

[notto]

If we look at the creation God made as a work of God as well, it tells us HOW God created. This leads us to the assumption that the scripture gives us the theological rational of WHY God created.

Theistic evolution is simply a looking at both works of God, the bible, and the creation itself, and then reconciling them. The bible tells us why God created and God's creation gives us clues as to how God did it.

Theistic evolutionists accept that God would not trick us by leaving false evidence in the creation so any evidence we find concerning the nature of this creation can be accepted as valid.

Evolution and Geology as well as a study of the scriptures themselves and their translation over the years from their original language to what we have now in English give us many clues that the creation narratives in the bible are allegorical.

This does not mean that the WHY of God creating is wrong or false. The bible is intended to give us answers to theological questions, not scientific ones.

 

[eunice]

6 "days" might not have been, you know literally that. Even though it does say in the bible that "there was evening, and there was morning" but you know, it could all be a matter of interpretation.

 

[Amleto]

from the amount of times yom is used in similar context there can be no confusion that a literal day is meant in this case.

If you want to argure about the expansion of the universe dilating time then that is another thing but I am not convinced that that works either.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Amleto - the vast majority of Christians in our country do not consider that Genesis is literal, nor that there is any conflict between Christianity and mainstream science.

I have a web site section at http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm where you might want to begin. I can also heartily recommend Russell Stannard's Doing Away with God? and Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God for your reading list.

 

[iac]

I believe many Christians have chosen to be Theistic-evolutionist because they want to fit in with both parties. Not to be ridiculed or insulted by one and to be accepted in the other, but not because the Bible embraces it.
Now to know that the Bible totally rejects this idea of both God and evolution read Gen. 1:21-25. All you need to read are those verses I just gave you, and there is nothing else in the Bible that supports this idea.



Don't stradle the fence dear friend.

 

[Amleto]

I don't see how that passage rejects evolution as Gods method for creation.

 

[iac]

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their own kinds, and every winged bird according to its own kind."

See it now?

 

[Amleto]

Asking the same question and expecting a different answer can be interpretated as the sign of a fool. Can you explain how that passage excludes evolution as a possible Godly process?

It looks like I have 'switched sides' from my first post, that just goes to show how confused I am!

 

[iac]

I was hoping you would see it yourself.


If God says "...Bird after its own kind.." or "...According to their own kinds...."

That means the a bird gives birth to a bird and everything gives birth to their own kind. God knew people would ask this question and He answered it.
That verse shows that nothing He created changes from species to species. Got it?

 

[Amleto]

Allowing for an evolutionary process: The change in any given generation would be too small for one to not be able to say 'this bird is according to its own kind' or similar.

 

[iac]

I think God would know. When He said one after its own kind He was practically saying everything will stay the same. Yes, I know there is some evolution within a species but NEVER in history has a species gone to a different species. If that verse isn't good enough for you then you're are just going with your own idea and not with the Bible which is your choice, but if you wanna ask this question you have to be at least reasonable.

That is all I have to say now. Good day.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I think God would know. When He said one after its own kind He was practically saying everything will stay the same. Yes, I know there is some evolution within a species but NEVER in history has a species gone to a different species.

And that is where you are wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If that verse isn't good enough for you then you're are just going with your own idea and not with the Bible which is your choice, but if you wanna ask this question you have to be at least reasonable.

That is all I have to say now. Good day.

There's nothing wrong with the verse. As Amleto has seen, it doesn't preclude evolution. I'm sure Latin speakers' children spoke Latin, but it didn't stop Spanish and French from evolving over time.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Why does one have to do with the other?
If you choose to be a theistic evolutionist or not, Either way I would love to say "Welcome to the family bro."

I dont' see either as heresy.
I believe the creation account was dealing with larger issues. I believe it was God creating light, space and time. He was creating the categories through which we experience life and in which science must operate. Science is our curiosity. When God spoke the universe into being, I dont' think he was worried about whether or not we were going to think the Earth was flat or that we would think the sun went around the Earth. By making the bible a science book, people were killed when they said anything contrary to "doctrine." By making it a science book, you have a text a few thousand year out of date.
I think making the bible a science book denigrates the purpose God had for it.
But regardless of whether we agree or disagree, Jesus exceeds (or should exceed) our division on such matters.
There is no reason for me or anyone to anathematize you for believing such.
For me, as a Christian, I believe that through Jesus Christ, what unites us is greater than what may try to divide us.

 

[iac]

I see absolutely no evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution. I really have no idea why people started believing it did, and if anyone has any evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution I would love to see it.
So if anyone can bring up some reasonable evidence that the Bible supports this idea I will agree that it is an in-house debate. Otherwise I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity.

 

[Buttermilk]

You are entitled to your opinion.

I hate it though when people pick out single verses and twist them to try and make it mean what they want it to mean.

The verse you quote no more proves or disproves either creation or evolution.

 

[iac]

I did not twist that verse. If that verse doesn't mean what I said it does please tell me your interpretation, and if anyone twist verses their own way just to be right then that anyone isn't me. If you can come up with a better explanation of that verse and what it means I would love to hear it.


Now does anyone have any reasonable evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution? Any?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I see absolutely no evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution. I really have no idea why people started believing it did, and if anyone has any evidence that the Bible supports theistic-evolution I would love to see it.
So if anyone can bring up some reasonable evidence that the Bible supports this idea I will agree that it is an in-house debate. Otherwise I will continue to say that theistic-evolution isn't Christianity.

Thank you. You are aware of course that this violates rule 1?

I do not accept evolution because it's in the Bible. I accept it for the same reasons I accept wave/particle duality, quantum theory and heliocentricity - Evidence. Why do I have to find evolution in the Bible when I don't have to find any other scientific model?

'sides. There is a hint in Genesis 1 - the text repeatedly says "God said - let the Earth bring forth... and it was so" - each time equating that with "So God created...". To the writer of Genesis, like the theistic evolutionist, the Earth bringing forth is the same thing as God creating.

 

[iac]

Thank you. You are aware of course that this violates rule 1?

I do not accept evolution because it's in the Bible. I accept it for the same reasons I accept wave/particle duality, quantum theory and heliocentricity - Evidence. Why do I have to find evolution in the Bible when I don't have to find any other scientific model?

'sides. There is a hint in Genesis 1 - the text repeatedly says "God said - let the Earth bring forth... and it was so" - each time equating that with "So God created...". To the writer of Genesis, like the theistic evolutionist, the Earth bringing forth is the same thing as God creating.

\

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.


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.


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.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

My point was to say that the blood of Jesus is more important than arguing over theistic evolution.