• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by drich0150, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +336
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Anything in the way of what is written in the bible or theory. what will have to change is the idea of how genesis is written. Common sense changes like for one when written there where no chapter and verse dentations. Everyone can agree on this. in That Chapter 2 does not start a second narrative. Chapter 2:1 begins the 7th day of the Father's creation. (As in the hebrew Elohim was the creator in chapter 1 to chapter 2:4 which is the seven days.

    Which means chapter 2:5 begins not a second narrative but a Different part of creation where Yahweh (the word of John 1:1) the word being YHWH (which the where not to speak in whom John identifies as Jesus) Yahweh begins his creation on the day Elohim created dry land. (on day 2) and completes everything in chapter two just before God created the rain on day three.

    How do I know? it says so right here:
    4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

    Remember everything before this point describes the 7th day or end of Elohim's 7days of creation, so by what is literally on page said here this new creation started on the day there was dry land... and what was being created here in chapter 2 ended before the rains.

    So what was created by Yahweh/the word? Adam Eve the garden and everything in it.

    So adam and eve and the garden of eden was created starting sometime literal day two and was complete some time literal day 3.

    Which brings us to chapter three. Now understand Chapter 3 does not take place the next day after the garden was complete. if it had then they would have been expelled outside, before the rest of the Elohim's creation was complete meaning if chapter 3 was meant to be sequential to chapter two (next day) the expulsion of Adam and eve from the garden would have happened day 4 of the father's/elohim's creation.

    Which allows us to say there is no time line between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of Chapter 3. Yes it could have been several days later or a week month year or a million years or 20 billion years or how ever long Science says we need for evolution to happen.

    How could Adam and eve lived so long? Remember they had access to the tree of life. They could eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However they did have access to the tree of life.

    This theory goes a long way in to also dispelling alot of the other supposes contradictions and clears up the genealogies.
    In that it explains to whom the sons and daughters of Adam married. It explain where the city of Nod came from that cain fled too. Because outside of the garden a version of mae made to simply look like God was created mature grow develop "evolve". We know little to nothing about this man other than God charged him to multiply and fill the world. Then we have Adam and Adam's people who where created not only in God's image but was breathe into him a living soul. Something day 6 man (evolved man) did not have. which meant all of Adam's progeny down to noah had souls and where living next to man without a soul. Which would explain the level of evil this world was awashed in that triggered the flood. Thus ensuring only men with souls populated the earth. This also squares up all of the geneologies and the YEC position in that it was about 6000 years from the point of the exodus from the garden that man with a living soul was introduced to this world. (Not that the world is only 6000 years old, but man with a soul upon Adam's arrival outside the Garden 6000 years had past.

    Now the only thing I can possible see as possible no go here is Gen 5 and it's traditional reading. in that Adam only lived 930 year on this earth..

    But I have two issues with that. one "on this earth" being the first. 1 was the garden on this earth? If so where is it? and then if it where to be of this earth then why was Adam and eve expelled to this earth where God curse the ground because of him. "and /he will have to work hard all your life for the food the ground produces."

    There is a clear separation between life in the garden and life on this earth.

    Two my second objection was What God said about the tree of knowledge. 3 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

    Now unless God is a liar.. They did died that very day. IE the immortal being who lived in the garden for how ever long it took to place a fossil record in the ground did die and were born into this world this earth a physical vessel who could toil and suffer like they never experienced before..

    The fact that God was concerned about them eating for the tree of life kinda shows they where no longer meant to share that same space/relationship they once had pre knowledge of sin.


    So to recap.

    This whole theory is based on one simple idea. there is no time line between Genesis 2 and genesis 3. Because of that you can put the 7 day creation in it's traitional complete form at the dawn of the creation of this world. and then accept all of what science has to say if your professor demands it or if you simply need to reconcile the fossil record with conventional mainstream scientific means and place the exodus of Adam and Eve @ or around 6000 years ago just like the bible says.

    Thoughts objections Ideas?

    I post this because I would like to do a video on this subject and was wondering if anyone could help me produce something like this.
    I think this could help to bridge the 'scientific gap' atheists and really now all higher learning institutions are forcing onto our children almost making them choose between God and a passing grade.

    This will allow a student to have and accept both a literal 7 day creation and whatever science has to say.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,604
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Why would the text of Genesis and 21st century science coincide? The Genesis text has nothing to do with science. There's no reason to think that anything approximating scientific thinking about the universe existed at the time Genesis was written.
     
  3. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    There are several ways to take genesis chapters 1-4 literally that also could allow for evolution, and you've pointed to a key thing: we cannot say from scripture how long the timeless situation in the Garden of Eden lasted for the rest of the Earth. I usually end up telling people to be cautious not to base too much of their faith on any one particular version of small details about creation not in scripture (such as the young earth style assuming the Tree of Life had no effect and little or no time passed while the Garden happened), but instead to base their faith solely and only and totally on the rock Christ told us we should build on in Matthew 7:24-27. Nothing else is a safe foundation for faith. So that reminder to keep our faith solely where Christ said to build it is a message we have to repeat often. Once a person really is building on the foundation Christ said is the only safe one, then they could speculate more about details of creation not specified in scripture, and never get too caught up in whether theory D19 or theory A23 is the best. We know if one or the other is correct, or they are both wrong -- that won't matter even a slight amount -- because we are on the rock, the only rock. The only one. (the "rock" is never dependent in any way (not even one) on how old a person thinks Earth is, etc.)
     
  4. Chadrho

    Chadrho a blind squirrel that found a nut Supporter

    389
    +365
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    This is interesting. In an effort of full disclosure, I hold that it's a category error to compare a scientific theory and the scriptures; nonetheless, I applaud your creativity.

    Given your theory, how do you reconcile it with John 1:3, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV)? I assume the word "All" in that statement quantifies over the whole domain of creation, and not just Adam, Eve, the Garden and everything in it.

    If all things were created through the Word, how do you reconcile that with your premise that the Word created the Garden/humanity and not the rest?
     
  5. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Well, the Creator is of course (by definition) the Creator of the laws of nature that science tries to discover, too, since the laws of nature are part of nature, and the Creator created nature.

    But, you're correct that the aim and meaning of Genesis chapters 1-3 isn't to be about mere details of chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc. -- it's not meant to be an exposition on mere science style details, which would be ultimately somewhat trivial.

    Instead the real meaning and effect of the chapters is far more profound for our souls than stuff like geology and physics and chemistry, etc.

    So, yes, it's not about any science style details at all. Instead the text is meant to lift us up out of our ordinary state of mind (of the world), change us, and begin to bring us closer to God. We are supposed to be affected by the scripture, instead of trying to analyze it. And if we humbly listen, with openness, it affects us profoundly, even in ways we don't understand.
     
  6. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +336
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Because it's the God's honest truth according to Christ? He seemed to think it was real enough in the first century, to mention it in mark 10, mat 19 so why then 2000 years later must we discard it?

    Or are you saying we are to pretend everything science has brought us is wrong? what are you responding on if science is always man's folly?

    Maybe I was not clear in my intent even though I did mention this. This theory is not for 40+ year olds who do not care how backwards the world thinks they are. This theory is for the one who has been made to choose between a passing grade and a life in a world where science has become the standard of living, or a belief that before now offers no way to logically reconcile itself with this new standard.

    Also understand I am not advocating what science says. I honestly do not care as I am over 40+ but at the same time what this theory does is allow the freedom to incorporate mandated learning with One's faith.

    How is that a bad thing?

    What does it cost? a little pride in that typical book chapter verse denotation create a false time line? Let them have it and we win the war on origins. Because at this point there is nothing they can say..

    If you don't believe that I have shopped this idea around on atheist sites off and on for several years now and they have nothing they can scientifically respond with. I can share links if you like

    Again this allows one to maintain full on page faith and truthfully accept all of evolutionary theory as it is taught without compromising anything written.
     
  7. fwGod

    fwGod Well-Known Member

    457
    +47
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Republican
    The Bible is not to be changed to conform to the way that ungodly men have taught evolution.

    But our minds are to be changed to conform to the Bible, because Jesus said to the Father.. "Your Word is truth."

    Therefore anything that is not according to the Bible .. is not truth.
     
  8. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,604
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    If a person wants to understand science, they can study science. If a person wants to study the bible, they can study the bible. There isn't any crossover. Nothing in the bible was written from a scientific perspective, the irony being that people only read scientific ideas into the text precisely because they have had some scientific education, not because those things were included in the text as science.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I think you're on the right track generally. We should remember to always be humble, and not think we know all things about small details of creation not specified in scripture. It's ok to have an opinion -- everyone does in actual reality. It's just that we should remember our viewpoint uses assumptions, if we start talking about things not actually anywhere in scripture, like the age of the Earth, various information about astronomy, geology, and on and on.

    It's good to try to help people by reminding them that we cannot say from scripture how long the timeless situation in the Garden of Eden lasted for the rest of the Earth. Where the Tree of Life was (!)...and the Eternal One for Whom time is really nothing walked with Adam and Eve -- He for Whom even a thousand years are just like as if only a day -- as if nothing, timewise.

    I usually end up telling people to be cautious not to base too much of their faith on any one particular version of small details about creation not in scripture (such as the young earth style assuming the Tree of Life had no effect (or being unaware of it instead), and then assuming (with no basis in scripture) that little or no time passed while the Garden happened), but instead to base their faith solely and only and totally on the rock Christ told us we should build on in Matthew 7:24-27. Nothing else is a safe foundation for faith. So that reminder to keep our faith solely where Christ said to build it is a message we have to repeat often. Once a person really is building on the foundation Christ said is the only safe one, then they could speculate more about details of creation not specified in scripture, and never get too caught up in whether theory D19 or theory A23 is the best. We know if one or the other is correct, or they are both wrong -- that won't matter even a slight amount -- because we are on the rock, the only rock. The only one. (the "rock" is never dependent in any way (not even one) on how old a person thinks Earth is, etc.)
     
  10. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +336
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    This is a good philosophy.

    However..

    When dealing with people/atheist who know just enough about the bible to be dangerous they often point out that Jesus believed in the creation narrative. if it was wrong then Jesus could not be God's son.

    That is why this argument is so important as it can undermine or strengthen one's faith.
     
  11. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I would respond if one tried to say that to me by quoting accurately the passage from the gospel they are attempting to paint into a new picture, so that their repainting fails.

    For example, suppose they try to use the one about man and women created for marriage to attempt to claim some other stuff.

    Here's the passage in Mark:

    2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    This passage has no indication at all, anywhere, about the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. It does tell us a truly crucial thing about our marriages, about divorce and hardness of heart -- that in a marriage we profoundly need to be soft hearted, so that we forgive. (else the marriage will fail, sooner or later)

    So, for any attempt to recast, repaint Christ's words into some new invented meaning about the age of the Earth, I'd go right to that passage and this will be good in a 2nd way also: it's always good for the lost to hear the actual words of Christ, because of how those actual words are not like they remember or expect or have been told.
     
  12. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member

    +2,084
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    One can do this already it is called being a Bible believing Christian. sites that will help you are answersingenesis and creation.com.

    Otherwise just take a knief to your bible.
     
  13. fwGod

    fwGod Well-Known Member

    457
    +47
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Republican
    I would stick with the "young earth" timeframe rather than the alternative which is incorporating the ungodly evolution into it.

    The tree of life in the garden of Eden became "the tongue" spoken of in Proverbs.
    I'll stick with what the Bible says.
    The Bible doesn't specify how old the earth is. Though it hints in some places to have a pre-adamic history.
     
  14. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If we humbly listen to the scripture sometimes without thinking about any viewpoint/doctrine/issue/idea, and just purely listen with all of our heart, then the wonderful happens to us, and that's the real jewel, and perhaps I should try to spend more time finding ways to testify to people about that, so that they don't get overly concerned about their doctrines or interpretations (which should not be overly elevated, where they could even start to become a kind of new idol at times). How might we testify to people how much better it is to truly listen with all of their heart, in true humble quietness of mind, trying to really hear? I've been trying some ways, but there may be more ways.

    I feel that when we experience that amazing thing that happens when we really listen, suddenly all the ideas like young/old earth and all the rest don't matter too much. I sincerely do not care that my sister or brother thinks the earth is young or old, or thinks differently than me. I rejoice that she/he believes. This is for real -- I know someone in my church that has a very different view than me, and I feel so happy about it, because I can tell she really believes, just like me.
     
  15. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    2:4 is what's called a toledot, " these are the generations of". You will find many of these in Genesis because it is not one book but rather a compilation of books. Whenever you get a toledot, or "this is the book of" you are going into a new book which may or may not occur immediately after the prior book.

    You can add a gap in two places. The toledot between Gen 1 and Genesis 2:5, or where Adam becomes a proper name in Genesis 5. (The person in the garden is simply called "the man" in Hebrew, in Genesis 5 the Hebrew drops the definite article "the" making Adam a proper name.)

    The latter gap would occur by separating the geneology from the book that is compiled before it. The other gap would be the creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2:5, where man is created on day 6, and sometime later a man is taken from that population and placed in the garden.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  16. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +1,861
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made them.

    5Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

    Before rain, the earth was watered by springs from the earth.


    7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

    A "soul" is not something one possesses, it is what you are a living being, a person ... and man became a living person by the breath of God.

    "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7, NKJV).

    Scripture gives us a simple equation for understanding the nature of humans:
    Body (dust of the ground; the earth's elements) plus
    Breath of life ("spirit" of life from God) equals
    A living person (a soul).

    Nowhere does the Bible speak of the soul as an immortal entity capable of living apart from our body. Neither does it speak of the spirit as an entity which can exist independent of our physical nature. We are not made of independent parts temporarily connected, but of body, soul, and spirit in one indivisible whole.

    The one "thing" science and christian teachings agree on lies in the cosmos ... and that is:

    The universe started suddenly ... and people should explore/move into the science(s) in those areas. Astrophysics, cosmology etc.

    People can and do debate earthly "theories" until the cows come home ... but ultimately both know and agree the beginning of life originated in the cosmos.
     
  17. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +336
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    John 1 King James Version (KJV)
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


    The word for God here is Theos and Jesus being the word or logos. Theos is not solely repersentive of the father but can also mean the son. So I will eperate how I see the passage identifying the Father and the son.

    This is how I read the passage using Father and Jesus in place of Theos and logos.

    1 In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the God/Father and Jesus was God/deity

    2 Jesus was in the beginning with God pointing to the in the beginning of Gen 1:1

    3 All things where made by God/Father (to my knowledge christians and jews do not dispute this) and without him/Jesus nothing was made.

    or it could even be argued (jewish argument) that :

    3 All things where made by God the Father and without him/God the Father nothing was made.

    But to our point if you look at Gen 1 Elohim was the creating deity for the 7 day creation. this word is generally reserved for the Father or it can be a generic term. Gen 2 identifies Yahweh as being the author of the Garden and of everything in it during the time mention on day two and three.

    Your question asks how do I reconcile John's account of Jesus/The word having been part of all of creation process.

    I would simply point out that Jesus was apart of the creation process. Nothing said he was excluded If I said it I did not mean to the exclusion of the other. I was just pointing out that two different forms or names identifying two different embodiements of God where at work. The important thing I was trying to highlight was that gen 1 and 2 are not the same story of creation. gen 1 was a out line of how everything happened and gen 2 was this is how the garden was created and when.

    I think what is being credited to God the father in the 7 day narrative is that it was his thought his design that was perhaps executed by "The word" of John 1
    And as Gen 2:5 read after land was form but before the rain Yahweh built the garden and everything in it separate and apart from the primary work of the father.
     
  18. Chadrho

    Chadrho a blind squirrel that found a nut Supporter

    389
    +365
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Okay, I see. That is interesting. You base it on whether Elohim or Yahweh is being used in the text. I didn't see that coming. Very interesting.
     
  19. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +336
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    You mean there wasn't any cross over.

    What many fail to understand but the board of indoctrination and education understands fully is that without integration of God in the understanding of our world, all forms of religion will die. That is why there is such a hard push to seperate the church from anything the state deems sacred. "Education" is that primary battle ground, because if you take God out of school and ogical through then what need will anyone have to seek out and study theology?

    Before the avengers movie how many people knew the name of thor's hammer? why should they science has killed the asgardians as gods.

    Again why turn a blind eye to what so many kids are being forced to choose between God or an education.
     
  20. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +336
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Even so the narritive in the passage places the evens of Chapter 2 between day 2 and day 3 of the previous account of creation. IE everything happening in chapter two where framed out by the two evens mentioned in verse 4 and 5.
    So you see chapter 3 happening with in what days after chapter 2?
    what/where in the passage does it say day 6 man was ever inserted into the garden? I I pointed out to you the passage tells us everything in chapter two including the creation of man with a soul happened between day two and three. You are not arguing me here it is plainly spelled out in the text.
    So God made an error or Man with a soul was made specifically for the garden day twoish, and man on day six was left to 'evolve outside the garden.

    I am asking what if you read the word toledot in Gen 2:4 as not "generation" as it relates to groups of men/geneologies but "course of History as it relates to creation" (the third defination of Toledot in the Strongs: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

    Then toledot simple reads:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

    I have shown a natural break between gen 2 and 3. If you do not see a break here aside from traditional beliefs I would like to explain why you think chapter 2 and three are connected.
     
Loading...