• 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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,793
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    No, there isn't any crossover, there isn't any crossover between science and the bible. When Genesis was written, there was no science to cross over with.

    No-one is forced to choose between God and education. Children are however sometime put in the position of having to choose between learning and the poorly-informed beliefs of their parents.
     
  2. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    I do not understand the point you are trying to make with the bible references. could you rephrase.. point out my error and then explain how you see me being wrong. by just pasting a passage only has me read the same verse I have already seen 1000 times before. (i'm not seeing it the way you do)

    never said it did. I have no idea what makes you think I am talking about that.

    ?????

    So? in your world View as a Christian is God not able to use what we identify as science to make things happen?

    If so why would science be something that needs to be separated from God? If God is real 'science' is mans understanding of how God uses the universe to his end goals.

    Or is God a perpetual enigma/wizard which must always be cloaked in magic and mystery?
     
  3. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    I mention it in the OP

    That the "word" is refered to as "the word" because that is what YHWH was to the jews. "The word of God."

    This also helps out the understanding of other passages as well as in Heb 4:
    12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

    14 Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need.

    12: For the Son/Jesus of God is active and sharper than any two edged sword...

    Jesus is our judge and will rightly divide our soul and spirit and discern our thoughts and intent of our heart.

    Just kinda reinforces the idea of the word being the word Yahweh
     
  4. Chadrho

    Chadrho Well-Known Member Supporter

    675
    +725
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    I like the way you're interpreting "word" in these NT passages. I think that is very helpful. But, again, I had not drawn a connection between Word and YHWH. I am still trying to take in the possible implications. Very interesting.
     
  5. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    but science exist now and if Genesis is God's truth then science should indeed support it. Truth is truth and genesis was truth before science. if Science is truth then again it should be supported by genesis, which again it certainly can do. Meaning you can have your full faith as it is popularly taught and again not have to deny anything science teaches. Do you understand that concept? With this theory we just took the primary conflict between God and education away without compromising either!

    How can you possible see a problem there?



    My primary outreach/ministry is dealing with collage kids who have gone to school and desperately trying to hold on to their faith. "School" makes religion/God a fool's errand. it pits the 'educated' against the foolish and bigoted ways of bronze age sheppards. Schools are not only a repository of facts but the teacher of popular culture and modern morality. Schools are shaping the direction of this country. and it is actively trying to seek out and destroythe worship of God to make this happen.

    If you do not think there is a battle between modern morality and God, just ask yourself if 25 years ago Gay marriage and gay adoptions would ever happen? would transexual males be allowed to compete with real female athletes? would these makes also be allowed to share bathrooms and shower spaces..
     
  6. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,793
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    The only way to understand what you are missing here is to learn more about how and why the Genesis account was written. There are plenty of resources for that.

    If someone finds that they are struggling in their faith because they are getting a education then that person has been badly let down by their faith community. There is no excuse for holding on to patently false notions about texts like the Genesis narrative, beliefs which are all about church tradition and nothing to do with an actual understanding of the text.

    The church has no business being heavily involved in what secular government does. A church that takes political sides to such a degree that the church and the political party are essentially the same thing is no longer a church.
     
  7. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    To be honest it was something I was taught along time ago I have not really look too far into it.

    I know the jews hold Yahweh to be the personal name of God, and traditionally that is supposed to be seperate from God the son.

    However John 1:1 labels the Word of God which again is what the Jews referred to as "yhwh" as being Christ incarnate.

    The theory I am bring fourth is not completely dependant on the who of God did what, but more on the fact there are two things happening at the same time.

    If it is all the father fine if it is all the son that is ok too. I just want people to understand that during day one and day two adam (man with a soul) was made part from day 6 man as chapter two explains everything with in the chapter happens between day 2 and day 3 of the normal creation narrative.
     
  8. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +2,045
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    well ... miscommunication going on here no doubt.

    Really, it's the premise of your OP

    evolution theory teaches life began out in the cosmos and this turned into that (evolved) over billions of years.

    God says He created everything fully formed.

    the two (evolution/creation) are mutually exclusive.
     
  9. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    I asked a very specific question which in turn gives you licenses to fill in those theological blanks. if you wish to be apart o the discussion. I even gave you a contextual error to resolve that would contradict your assessment completely yet it seems your best efforts are to try and show case my apparent lack of the very specific training needed to understand your very specific take on genesis.

    Which to me has always been apart of the problem with most exegetical work. One has to be an expert to read the bible. Nothing can be discerned from a off the shelf reading. one has to know the right people to know the trick to try and understand when a word say "x" it means Y..

    How about this.. The theory in the OP needs none of that and it does not contradict itself with any sort of explanation.

    The church in this country has a role and always had a role in government from the beginning. it is the 'progressive' european thought that God should be absent in government.

    Here are historical examples of how God and religion has shaped the united states:
     
  10. PaulCyp1

    PaulCyp1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    655
    +520
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    It isn't a problem for the majority of Christians. Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". As a result of that divine guarantee of truth, the teaching of that one Church (which includes well over half of all Christians) never conflicts with any natural truth revealed by science. Truth cannot conflict with truth.
    In Protestantism on the other hand, untruth is rampant, as shown by the fact that the teaching of each denomination conflicts with the teaching of the others, and truth cannot conflict with truth. Therefore it is no surprise that the teaching of many Protestant denominations also conflicts with natural truths clearly revealed by science.
     
  11. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You have separate books here between Gen 1 and Gen 2:5. Putting Gen 2 inside Gen 1 is one way to try to put the pieces together, in this case by rendering erets as earth rather than land. How you render it is going to change how you place it, I render it as land.

    I'm still trying to figure it out, by combining science, Ancient Near Eastern culture, and the particulars of the text. I think there is a gap, but I'm not sure where to place it between the two I listed. I think the book for Gen 2 is drawing upon material already known. The book begins it's new content at the point where God plants a Garden, and places man in it. You can see the text shift from a compression of events drawing on another text to the uncompressed part of the story at this juncture. Because it's compressed we can't tell where this is in time. V5 seems to be a reference to agriculture which began around 10,000 BC and which appeared to be a a key component of the region success and history. But we have skeletons that go back well over 200,000 years giving us a huge gap. So I see the placing of the man in the land of Eden being near 10,000 bc (Gen 2:8). The Sumerian king list seems to do the same when you convert their numerical system from 60 based to 10.

    Regarding the toledot in Gen 2:4. It is clearly looking back at Gen 1, not Gen 2. The pronoun "these" used in the toledot has to refer to Gen 1 as there is no preparation of Heaven and Earth in Gen 2. There are no chapter breaks here, these are books hemed together and we have to find the seams. Even though the tradional view places this forward, I think it's got to look backwards as a closing of Gen 1.

    This is a hard text in Hebrew, the "Easy to Read Version" ERV is not a good translation to work these things out in. As far as Eden not being on Earth. How could it be anywhere else with the Tigris, Euphrates in it, and given it has geographical references like Cush and Assyria?
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  12. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    then in your words what is the premise of the OP?

    So? is God not apart of the Cosmos? or is the Cosmos not apart of creation?

    where? Book chapter and verse.
    So you do understand whom ever wrote the book of genesis has no way of classifying animals into the genius and species you are doing when you say they were complete. meaning there was no word for a bird let alone a specific species. so we get winged creatures which means everything from a fly to a bat to a bird to a pterodactyl.
    look it up for yourself.
    Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

    Your default way of classifying animals did not happen till 5000+ years after this was written.

    So again there was and still is no way of saying that your birds where the birds of adam and eve. that is a religious tradition that is not reflected in the bible in anyway shape or form.

    Remember I only promised you would not have to change anything the bible said. I did not say your traditional beliefs where not subject to be changed.

    There in lies the problem most of us do not know where our traditional beliefs begin and where the bible ends.

    please explain, how so?

    IE why do they need to be?

    God is the creator Evolution explain how things where created. how is one different from the other?
     
  13. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    About a year ago I set to read the text and see whether or not it conflicts with science. It's not finished but here is what I have so far if it can help. Drive
     
  14. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,793
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    The bible couldn’t be clearer on the separation of church and state, Christians should ‘have nothing to do with civilian affairs’. In the early church, roles within the state apparatus and membership of the church were seen as incompatible. How unclear is ‘my kingdom is not of this world?’. Any deep involvement in politics is inseparable from a long string of ethical compromises, as can be plainly seen in church support for the current US administration.

    Not at all, it’s just a question of looking into the context of the time etc. John H Walton’s writings on it are a good place to start.
     
  15. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +2,045
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Macroevolution is the change from one distinct species to another.

    Where does God talk about macro evolution in His Word?

    Christians do affirm micro evolution ... life produces after their kind and is biblically supported.
     
  16. Maria Billingsley

    Maria Billingsley Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,144
    United States
    Christian
    In Relationship
    The seven day creation makes much more sense than the big bang sludge theory. There is also another theory, seven days is a marker for creation. After all, this story is told to those who had no clue of science. God created science. It would take many generations after to uncover it. God has released information as He promised He would. Lets not box His creation within a couple of pages meant to edify those at that time. There is more to the story for a more mature mind.
    Blessings
     
  17. NothingNew

    NothingNew New Member

    2
    +0
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    Like the Tree of Knowledge of Good an Evil caused it's full effect after a one-time use, I think there is reason to believe the Tree of Life would also work similarly, therefore Adam and Eve never partook in its fruit. This is the reason God wanted to prevent them from eating it in Genesis 3:22-24

    "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

    Also, Adams offspring, who never ate from the tree of life, lived just as long if not longer than he did. It seems people just lived longer in the early days of creation.
     
  18. NothingNew

    NothingNew New Member

    2
    +0
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    Before evolutionary and early earth scientific theories came into existence, I doubt there were too many questions or objections among Christians as to whether the Genesis account of creation was literal. This question of literary analysis has become increasingly popular in modern conversation of the Bible and is frequently employed to make the Word fit into another piece of seemingly contradictory knowledge we have learned from another source. And that's the problem:

    Our way to approach the Word of God as a source of knowledge, must supersede all other sources which may compete with it. It is not necessary for the words and ideas of the Bible to cohere with all other sources which may exist now or in the future. In other words, there is no reason for us to hold the words we read in any other book or article with the same level of truth as the words we read in the Bible.

    If you were to read a scientific article which tells how the beginning of the world happened and seems contrary to the words of scripture, you may seek to find how it coheres with the Word of God, however this is not necessary.

    This is quite a bit different than how we think about reading two separate passages in scripture which seem contradictory to one another: we must approach both passages as being true since both are the Word of God, and at that point we may endeavor to understand how both are true simultaneously.

    But there is no reason for us to accept second-hand scientific research as truth in the same way that we accept the Bible as truth (and I say this as a person who believes in much of early earth scientific theory). For everything you think you know about early earth science and evolutionary theory, most of us have not actually done the research first hand, and are therefore simply trusting what other people say as reliable and accurate. I'm not saying we must deny science, or that scientific pursuit is contrary to Biblical pursuit, but simply that scientific theory does not start with the same assumptions that we must start with when approaching the Bible, namely that the Words of the Bible must be true, while the words in a scientific journal may be true.

    Therefore, it is not necessary for us to discover how the Genesis account of creation fits in with the scientific account, although we may still attempt to do so. We know at least the Genesis account is true.
     
  19. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +347
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    without the context this statement was made I can only say my theory has no concern in how erets is rendered. I do however state the chapter and verse denotations are in error and use genesis 1:1 to 2:4 as an example that shows one narrative being wrongly divided. This is primarily to show there is no continuity/time line between chapters. That is my only effort here.

    I'm still trying to figure it out, by combining science, Ancient Near Eastern culture, and the particulars of the text. I think there is a gap, but I'm not sure where to place it between the two I listed.[/quote] There is a traditional Hebrew story telling/historical teaching style at play here. one is to give a condensed out line of a happening or event from beginning to end, then then for a specific moment they will identify a time span in the original outline, and say this happened between here and here as to frame out sequentuially and to give greater detail.

    Gen1:1- gen2:4 is said out line of all of creation of this world. Now moving forward Gen 2:5 to the end of the chapter is a specific telling of Adam the garden and everything in it.

    The next division is gen 3. there isn't a time frame with in the creation narrative that this story/fall of man takes place in the larger creation outline.
    agree that would be gen 1 verse 5 and 6 tells us everything that follows happens with in these two points of time. Dry land/earth and just before it rains. Meaning everything in gen 2 :6 and after to the end of the chapter starts after dry land/earth on day 2 and everything in gen 2 is completed by mid day 3 just before the rains came.

    This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. (day 2) 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.(mid day 3)

    So at the beginning of the chapter 2 narrative we have two book ends which places the content of chapter two between these two points in time of the larger 7 day creation.
    Got that. my point is when this happened.

    something I allude to in the OP but yes.

    If you are looking for a roman calendar date no... but if you can use the "day one when God creates light and dark, then yes you can. Everything in chapter 2 (aside from day seven's events) happen between day 2 and 3.

    Again no. chapter two v5 say this all happens well before there were fields because there was no rain and there where no people to tend to the crop/before agriculture.

    again what happens in the garden is apart from the 7 day narrative. everything in the garden was fast tracked to fit between day two and day three.

    so says the OP

    is this not what I have been saying from my first post?
    What is it do you think My position here is?

    it is a tool, like any other it may not be a finishing tool but here's the thing that help even the pretentious. it's communicating in an active dialect. any questioning of the passage can always be looked up, but here again it forces the reader to take a live dialect look at the passage and this often times will uncloud mysteries interpretations of a dead dialect will often leave behind.

    The easy to read if often considered a humble mans version as many pretenses have to be dropped or intentionally added to include denominationally specific material. This translations and many like it force a return to study, because often time passages will not have specific denominational slants we can often put on words and phrases used in a dead dialect version of scripture.

    The point? the bible is useless to you and those in whom you try and help if it can only be view through denominationally specific lenses. You should be able to pick up and use any version of the HOLY BIBLE with a good lexicon and concordance to back it up.

    At that time the tigris was not known by that name, the river was so named when the greeks took over the region. Tigris - Wikipedia
    The same is true with the euphraties river. it was also known by another name then.
    Euphrates - Wikipedia
    The Ancient Greek form Euphrátēs (Ancient Greek: Εὐφράτης, as if from Greek εὖ "good" and ϕράζω "I announce or declare") was adapted from Old Persian Ufrātu,[1] itself from Elamite ú-ip-ra-tu-iš. The Elamite name is ultimately derived from a name spelt in cuneiform as , which read as Sumerian language is "Buranuna" and read as Akkadian language is "Purattu"; many cuneiform signs have a Sumerian pronunciation and an Akkadian pronunciation, taken from a Sumerian word and an Akkadian word that mean the same. In Akkadian the river was called Purattu,[2] which has been perpetuated in Semitic languages (cf. Syriac P(ə)rāṯ, Arabic al-Furāt) and in other nearby languages of the time (cf. Hurrian Puranti, Sabarian Uruttu). The Elamite, Akkadian, and possibly Sumerian forms are suggested to be from an unrecorded substrate language.[3] Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov suggest the Proto-Sumerian *burudu "copper" (Sumerian urudu) as an origin, with an explanation that Euphrates was the river by which the copper ore was transported in rafts, since Mesopotamia was the center of copper metallurgy during the period.[4]

    The fact that the bible list two other unknown rivers would indicate that river system framed out the garden is else where
     
  20. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I think it was before 10,000 BC, so that would be before agriculture.

    I don't know how you fit all of the events in the garden between days 2 and 3 when man isn't created till day 6. It also requires rendering Erets as earth rather than land to tie it to Gen 1.

    The ERV is not a version for serious inquiry into a text. The purpose of that version is to be easy to read for people who use sign language, not to be true to the Hebrew structure or vocabulary. It is not a "humble man's version" it is a version that is rendered down to the vocabulary available in sign language for people whose first language is sign language.

    I understand putting a gap between Gen 2 and Gen 3, but it's a stretch to make that more than Adams lifetime of 900 and some years. You try and overcome this limitation by placing Eden as not on earth. But the discription of Eden refers to actual places on earth for reference. I understand that these are modern names for ancient places. But they are still ancient places on earth. So if Eden is not on earth why does the author use earthly locations to pinpoint it's geographical location?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...