How to reconcile biological and social evolution with the Bible?

Godsunworthyservant

Active Member
Dec 10, 2023
94
52
68
WV
✟2,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Evolution theory and creation theory are mutually exclusive.
It is my considered opinion that they are only mutually exclusive if you believe that the Genesis creation story is meant to be an accurate chronological history text. If one believes that the Genesis story is illustrative and not written as a historical document then it's possible that God used evolution to some degree or another in the creation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,810
5,657
Utah
✟722,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It is my considered opinion that they are only mutually exclusive if you believe that the Genesis creation story is meant to be an accurate chronological history text. If one believes that the Genesis story is illustrative and not written as a historical document then it's possible that God used evolution to some degree or another in the creation.
This is true ... however if one considers Genesis as merely illustrative then the foundation of ones faith is built on sand.

Jesus affirmed Genesis ...

Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”

From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.

John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
This is true ... however if one considers Genesis as merely illustrative then the foundation of ones faith is built on sand.
God uses figurative language in the Bible. If you think illustrative stories are faulty, then the Gospels are "built on sand." Jesus used parables repeatedly.
Jesus affirmed Genesis ...
But He did not affirm a literal history in Genesis.
Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”
Genesis 1:1 makes it clear what was there at the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus is talking about the creation or humans, not the heavens and Earth
From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.
Not unless you add that to God's narrative. Bad idea, I think.
John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote.
But of course, Moses never said that the first three chapters of Genesis are literal history. That's a modern addition by men who wanted to make it more acceptable to them.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is my considered opinion that they are only mutually exclusive if you believe that the Genesis creation story is meant to be an accurate chronological history text. If one believes that the Genesis story is illustrative and not written as a historical document then it's possible that God used evolution to some degree or another in the creation.
There are some serious theological issues with treating the Genesis narrative as illustrative. For example, when Paul speaks of Adam's disobedience in Romans 5, he speaks of it as an actual event in history and as the basis for why we need to be saved in the first place, Jesus is the 2nd Adam but how can He be the 2nd Adam if there was no 1st Adam? Jesus also treats it as authentic history in several places and speaks of Adam and Eve as historical people. So it's not as if the Genesis narrative is an entirely isolated portion of the Bible, but it is interweaved throughout the text.

Of course, there are other creation narratives in the Old Testament that get less attention, and the existence of such narratives in the Bible at least gives some credibility to the idea that these mythologies were illustrative rather than historical.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There are some serious theological issues with treating the Genesis narrative as illustrative. For example, when Paul speaks of Adam's disobedience in Romans 5, he speaks of it as an actual event in history
Why can't there be an allegory about an actual event?
Jesus is the 2nd Adam but how can He be the 2nd Adam if there was no 1st Adam?
Why can't there be an allegory about real people?
Of course, there are other creation narratives in the Old Testament that get less attention, and the existence of such narratives in the Bible at least gives some credibility to the idea that these mythologies were illustrative rather than historical.
If it was absolutely certain one way or the other, then there would be broad agreement among Christians about it. But since it's not in any way dependent on one's salvation, it doesn't really matter.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why can't there be an allegory about an actual event?
I'm not sure what your point with this question is. The problem I'm mentioning is that Paul's usage of Adam's sin in Romans is as the foundational problem that Christ's advent solves. So if the actual history is that death preceded human existence, as "nature is red in tooth and claw," then his whole argument goes out the window. With evolution, the problem of death necessarily precedes human sin. I'm not saying this is an intractable issue, but it's something that those who believe in evolution and the veracity of the Bible have to deal with in some way.
Why can't there be an allegory about real people?
I'm not sure I understand your point here, either.
If it was absolutely certain one way or the other, then there would be broad agreement among Christians about it. But since it's not in any way dependent on one's salvation, it doesn't really matter.
It does alter how salvation is understood, though. That's kind of my point. It's something that has to be dealt with, because there are implications and challenges that arise from either position. For the person who prioritizes science, the Biblical data must be tinkered with to make it fit. To those who accept the Biblical creation story, the empirical data must be massaged to fit a pre-determined model. Either way, violence is being done to something.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So if the actual history is that death preceded human existence, as "nature is red in tooth and claw," then his whole argument goes out the window.
Only if you assume that the death God told Adam about, was a physical death. But God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years after. So we know it's not a physical death.

I'm not saying this is an intractable issue, but it's something that those who believe in evolution and the veracity of the Bible have to deal with in some way.
I don't see a problem. If God tells the truth then there isn't a problem.

To those who accept the Biblical creation story, the empirical data must be massaged to fit a pre-determined model.
No need. Assuming that God was right, there's no need to massage the data. Reality and the creation story are perfectly consistent.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only if you assume that the death God told Adam about, was a physical death. But God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years after. So we know it's not a physical death.
I don't think it's a matter of assumption that Paul's argument in Romans is speaking of physical death, especially when we consider that the contrast to it is the bodily resurrection of Jesus and a hope that physical death has been conquered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I don't see a problem. If God tells the truth then there isn't a problem.
The issue isn't whether God is telling the truth, but about the assumptions human beings seem to make about how God has to operate. No where in the Bible does it say that our empirical experiences are completely trustworthy, or anything about what the initial state of the universe was.
No need. Assuming that God was right, there's no need to massage the data. Reality and the creation story are perfectly consistent.
What you quoted was more aimed at those who take the Biblical account as being literal, because they are forced to play games with the data in order to force it into a pre-determined model.

Those who prioritize the natural sciences massage the Bible so that what is spoken of within it fits with the account given by natural science, those who prioritize the literal Biblical account massage the natural sciences to fit with the Biblical account.

Simply denying that these challenges exist doesn't really seem like an intellectually honest way to handle it.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,819
10,795
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟833,852.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Hi everyone.

At the outset, I would like to point out that these are questions addressed to people who are convinced, as I am, that evolution is a fact and that God used it to create the universe and life. This is not a discussion of the veracity of evolution, as this issue is already covered in (too) many other threads. If you believe that evolution over billions of years did not happen, that's fine. That belief alone does not make you a better or worse Christian. It's just not the topic of this discussion, and if anyone wants to hear arguments against the concept of evolution then he can look at other posts.
Secondly, it is possible that some questions have been answered in whole or in part in other threads. If so that's great, but there is simply so much written on this forum that I am not able to find and read all the information relevant to me. If someone would like to provide answers in his own words that's very good, because after all, the forum is for expressing one's own thoughts. But I will also not be offended if someone gives me links to other statements, names of articles or books or videos that better explain the issues raised here.
After all, when I look at my post like this, I asked a lot of questions:) Of course, I don't require an answer to every single one of them, but I mainly care about answering the following 4 questions:

1. How do we reconcile God's intention for mankind, original sin, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with evolution?
2. What can we learn from the history of life on Earth? What does evolution tell us about God's attributes and intentions?
3. Where does the man for whom Christ gave his life begin? Why does the Bible seem so unclear on this issue?
4. How do we know which parts of the Bible should be interpreted literally and which symbolically? Can we tell something about God's attributes and intentions based on the metaphorical story.


The Bible says that God created man - male and female - and placed them in the Garden of Eden. He desired our welfare. He wanted people to be satisfied with their lives - to have their basic needs met such as food, health, protection from violence, companionship, and to worship, obey and devote themselves to him. Man was supposed to transform the entire Earth into one great garden of Eden, but thanks to his perfection and God's blessing, he would not suffer while performing this task. Unfortunately, man, at Satan's instigation, rebelled by breaking God's prohibition and decided that he wanted to decide for himself what was good and what was evil. Therefore, God banished him from the garden, depriving him of the opportunity to eat from the tree of life and perfection. Adam and Eve had no children before the rebellion, so we all inherited their sin. God foresaw how difficult and painful man's life would be, which is not to say that He intended it from the beginning. His intention was completely different and He did not abandon it. He decided, no doubt with the consent of the person concerned himself, that He would send a Messiah who would correct the error of our forefathers, and in this way people would return to their original state - they would live as Adam and Eve lived before they sinned, and continue God's intention to transform the planet (Revelation 21:1-5)
Everything God did from the expulsion from the Garden of Eden served precisely to prepare the place for the activity of Jesus Christ, who through his death will save mankind. And he succeeded in fulfilling his mission - by remaining faithful to God, which Adam failed to do, he paid the ransom with his life. (Romans 5:12-21).

But what is the history of the Earth, life and humans? The Earth began to take shape billions of years after the Big Bang. Initially it was a fireball bombarded by meteorites, which collided and mostly absorbed another planet. The debris from that planet formed a moon, whose gravity strongly affected Earth, although it began to weaken as it moved a few centimeters away each year. Only after hundreds of millions of years did the Earth assume a form on which life became possible. Of course, rocks and chemical processes do not feel or think. I don't see anything contradictory to the Bible that the Earth was formed in such a way. I am persuaded by John Walton's argument that the phrase "in the beginning" refers to the beginning of God's action in the world, not the material beginning of the Universe. Sure, it raises the question of at what point God decided that it was on this very planet that He would create someone "in His image and likeness" (Genesis 1: 26), but this is a purely theoretical question, and one that no one seems to know the answer to. I'm more puzzled by questions that concern living beings, which are, to a lesser or greater degree, sentient and reasoning. For example, why exactly did God choose the Earth? For most of my life, I was convinced that it was the only planet with water and capable of supporting life. But I learned that not only is this not the case, but there are planets that are much better places to live. So why Earth and not another, better planet? Could it be that at the time of God's decision, it was Earth that was the most optimal place for the fulfillment of God's intentions, i.e. for the course of evolution that would eventually lead to the creation of man? Or were other planets already occupied? If so, are there other "images of God" on other planets? And how do they live? Is Jesus a space traveler who roams the planets and saves the people there? :DOk, I've strayed terribly from the main thread, although of course these questions also connect to some extent to the main question. In any case, I do not think that the existence of other life forms on other planets, even similar to humans, contradicts Scripture. Nor do I think that evolution in itself contradicts the existence of God. It seems to me to make much more sense that changes occur gradually than if God were to create the entire plan of the Universe with the smallest details in one blink of an eye and at the same time put it into practice. I agree with Pope Francis that "God is not a wizard with a magic wand." After all, doesn't God have the right to enjoy the process of creation just as we enjoy creating cities in City Skylines or developing the Sims? Where would be the joy if the creators of these games simply provided us with finished cities to look at or a fully developed Sims family that lacks nothing? However, such an analogy is inaccurate, because it ignores the issue of the suffering of living beings.
So, after hundreds of millions of years, we have the first cells, which in time merge into multicellular organisms. And after almost 4 billion years we have the first creatures that, in my opinion, are worthy to be concerned about their fate. These creatures live, die and produce offspring. New species are created, and old species die out. And so life goes on for hundreds of millions of years.
However, where there is life, there is also suffering and death. Animals suffer and die due to aggression from other animals, disease, parasites, starvation, cold, overheating, natural disasters, or accidents. Often, representatives of even one species compete with each other in a brutal way, and the victory of one means the death of another (for example, a chick with brighter plumage attracts the attention of its parent and gets food, while the one with darker plumage dies of starvation). In addition, from time to time there are mass extinctions, which cause the extinction of even most species. Of course, the history of life cannot be reduced only to an uninterrupted string of torment and pain. Animals also experience good moments, but this does not change the fact that suffering is inherent in life. Why does God allow living and sentient beings to suffer and die without any purpose for hundreds of millions of years? Are living beings to God what Sims are to us?

Let's turn to the history of man, or ourselves. It is easy for us to point to two extremes: ourselves and the gorilla and say "I am the image of God, and that one is an animal," but after all, the history of man is not so clear. At what point in history does a person begin to hope for salvation?
We know that human evolution is not a "march of progress," but more of a "parade of freaks." It wasn't that two monkeys had a baby that was completely different from them and that we could call human. The changes occurred so gradually that each child was almost identical to the parents - the difference was even imperceptible. Such imperceptible differences accumulated, and it was only after hundreds of thousands of years that it was possible to see a clear difference between a given individual and its great-grandparent. Nor did the changes occur linearly - it wasn't that each successive individual became more and more human and less and less ape. Due to chance, interbreeding and unfavorable environmental changes, human characteristics could disappear and, for example, subsequent generations could possess fewer typically human traits than their predecessors. The general trend observed from the perspective of millions of years, however, was that more and more individuals emerged that increasingly resembled humans in both physique and abilities.
I wonder what it will look like at the Last Judgment? Will Jesus call one of these first people and say: " you didn't have a chance to meet me, so I'm giving you a chance to recognize me as your Savior, because I also died for your sins. But not for the sins of your parents, because they were some monkeys, and animals cannot sin or be redeemed. And not for the sins of your great-great-grandchild, because he degenerated a bit and that too was a monkey. But for the fact that from your 15th generation, they're all humans"?

Ok, so we move on to the question of individuals who indisputably possess characteristics that distinguish them from other ape/human species. Are typical representatives of Neanderthals humans or apes? What about the Denisovans? What about homo naledi? What about homo floresiensis? What about other as yet undiscovered individuals? What about the children from the unions of homo sapiens with Neanderthals/Denisovans? What about less evolved hominids? Will Lucy be saved, because I kind of liked her?
I don't expect anyone to have specific answers to each of these questions, because it would be absurd to claim that based on some mathematical calculation of typically human traits one can determine who will be saved, e.g., if someone is 90% homo sapiens (whatever that resemblance would be) then yes, and if he is 89% then no.
I'm more wondering if anything can be said on this subject that has any foundation? Or is the mere similarity in behavior and appearance between Denisovans/Neanderthals and humans a pretty strong foundation in itself? If so, that's pretty optimistic, but still, as we go back in time, the similarity between homo sapiens and hominids is diminishing more and more.
And so we come to the issue of original sin. It is with it that the Bible explains the current state of mankind. However, when and by whom was it committed? Some claim that Adam and Eve were created independently of other humans and placed in the Garden of Eden. However, around 4000 BC on there were already the first cultures/civilizations with their own armies. So if Adam and Eve were viable individuals then how would the expansion of the Garden of Eden have been? Were Adam and his descendants supposed to conquer these countries militarily?
And what role did this couple realistically play after the exile? Eve was called "the mother of all living" (Genesis 3: 20), but even if her offspring were exceptionally fertile and mobile she certainly could not have been the mother of those living before her or those living in the Americas or Australia. Besides, it would still take a long time before at least one Eve gene was found in every inhabitant of Africa, Europe and Asia.
After all, if it was only Adam and Eve who committed the sin then why do other people suffer? And did Christ die only for the descendants of this couple?
I know that even without original sin we would need redemption, because "there is not a righteous man on earth who [always] does good and never sins" (Koh 7:20). However, this does not change the fact that the Bible teaches two types of sin: that resulting from our will and original sin. However, looking at the history of mankind, did something like original sin affecting all of mankind even occur?
I just go with what the Bible literally says because God knows infinitely more than I do.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't think it's a matter of assumption that Paul's argument in Romans is speaking of physical death, especially when we consider that the contrast to it is the bodily resurrection of Jesus and a hope that physical death has been conquered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We can answer that simply by asking "what death did Jesus save us from?" If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the spiritual death Adam experienced when he sinned.

I don't see that evolution can tell us any more about God's attributes than gravity can. Although Paul is right in saying that we can learn about God's attributes and majesty by the things He has made, I don't think evolution is more instructive to that end than anything else in nature.

Why is the Bible unclear on exactly when humans began? I'm supposing that it doesn't matter to our salvation. If God thought it was important to that end, He would have been more specific, I think.

It's difficult sometimes to know whether a specific text is figurative or literal. And I can't find such a case where it matters. Focusing on that question seems to lead us away from the message God is giving us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Laodicean60

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2023
1,966
913
63
NM
✟31,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We can answer that simply by asking "what death did Jesus save us from?" If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the spiritual death Adam experienced when he sinned.
Doesn't the bible portray death as being asleep?
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean60

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2023
1,966
913
63
NM
✟31,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Metaphorically, maybe. Do you have a verse?
Now I'm no scholar like the rest of you smart people.

1Co 15:20
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

1Th 4:13
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We can answer that simply by asking "what death did Jesus save us from?" If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the spiritual death Adam experienced when he sinned.
Was he raised bodily, and will we be raised bodily when He returns? There's no failure, the full promise simply hasn't been realized yet. It was physical death that Christ came to defeat, but we live in a time between the initiation of that victory and its full consummation.
I don't see that evolution can tell us any more about God's attributes than gravity can. Although Paul is right in saying that we can learn about God's attributes and majesty by the things He has made, I don't think evolution is more instructive to that end than anything else in nature.

Why is the Bible unclear on exactly when humans began? I'm supposing that it doesn't matter to our salvation. If God thought it was important to that end, He would have been more specific, I think.
There seem to be a lot of packed in assumptions about what the Bible is for in this.
It's difficult sometimes to know whether a specific text is figurative or literal. And I can't find such a case where it matters. Focusing on that question seems to lead us away from the message God is giving us.
Playing games by treating texts that are presented in a factual manner as being figurative robs the text of its meaning. The only way for the text to be normative is if we understand the text as it is presented, and not by adjusting it to fit with philosophical and scientific enterprises. And it is only by reading the text as presented that we can discover what God intends for us to know.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
We can answer that simply by asking "what death did Jesus save us from?" If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the spiritual death Adam experienced when he sinned.

Was he raised bodily, and will we be raised bodily when He returns?
So far, hasn't saved anyone from dying. So if it was a physical death we were to be saved from, that's a failure. And notice that God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it was not a physical death God was speaking of.

I don't see that evolution can tell us any more about God's attributes than gravity can. Although Paul is right in saying that we can learn about God's attributes and majesty by the things He has made, I don't think evolution is more instructive to that end than anything else in nature.

Why is the Bible unclear on exactly when humans began? I'm supposing that it doesn't matter to our salvation. If God thought it was important to that end, He would have been more specific, I think.

There seem to be a lot of packed in assumptions about what the Bible is for in this.
Just these: The Bible is about God and humans and our relationship. Granted, that's missing from the thinking of most literalists, but I can support it, if you'd like me to do that.

It's difficult sometimes to know whether a specific text is figurative or literal. And I can't find such a case where it matters. Focusing on that question seems to lead us away from the message God is giving us.

Playing games by treating texts that are presented in a factual manner as being figurative robs the text of its meaning.
You're assuming that if God uses figurative language, He isn't being "factual." Bad assumption. The only way for the text to be normative is if we understand the text as it is presented, and not by adjusting it to fit with literalist assumptions. And it is only by reading the text as presented that we can discover what God intends for us to know.

If scripture describes the sky as an object with windows in it through which rain falls, we don't invalidate scripture by showing that such windows don't exist. To niggle about such things is to miss the entire message.

Which as I said, is about God and humans and our relationship.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We can answer that simply by asking "what death did Jesus save us from?" If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the spiritual death Adam experienced when he sinned.


So far, hasn't saved anyone from dying. So if it was a physical death we were to be saved from, that's a failure. And notice that God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it was not a physical death God was speaking of.
First, just because it hasn't prevented anyone's death yet doesn't mean that it's a failure. It just means the time is not yet right. As for God's words to Adam, it can just as easily be understood that his death was guaranteed from the point that he ate and so was the walking dead from that moment on. No need to spiritualize it.
I don't see that evolution can tell us any more about God's attributes than gravity can. Although Paul is right in saying that we can learn about God's attributes and majesty by the things He has made, I don't think evolution is more instructive to that end than anything else in nature.

Why is the Bible unclear on exactly when humans began? I'm supposing that it doesn't matter to our salvation. If God thought it was important to that end, He would have been more specific, I think.


Just these: The Bible is about God and humans and our relationship. Granted, that's missing from the thinking of most literalists, but I can support it, if you'd like me to do that.
That needs some parsing out, because it would seem that a relationship that is built on fictional history(or call it figurative if you'd like) is quite a twist on relationship. So being about God and humans and our relationship, that would imply some degree of literalism to the historical texts.
It's difficult sometimes to know whether a specific text is figurative or literal. And I can't find such a case where it matters. Focusing on that question seems to lead us away from the message God is giving us.


You're assuming that if God uses figurative language, He isn't being "factual." Bad assumption. The only way for the text to be normative is if we understand the text as it is presented, and not by adjusting it to fit with literalist assumptions. And it is only by reading the text as presented that we can discover what God intends for us to know.
The debate isn't between a wooden literal reading ignoring the places where the text uses figurative language but about turning matter of fact literal historic presentations into "figurative" pieces without basis in the text itself. If it wouldn't be figurative in any other text, there's no reason to treat it as figurative in the Bible. And texts that are figurative usually aren't that difficult to tell they are figurative for a number of reasons.
If scripture describes the sky as an object with windows in it through which rain falls, we don't invalidate scripture by showing that such windows don't exist. To niggle about such things is to miss the entire message.
Except we're not talking about obvious poetic language, but things that are presented as historical facts. If the text itself implies a passage is figurative, then the way to handle it literally is to respect the figurative language. It boils down to understanding the text as it is written, and not twisting it into "figurative" bits to manage pieces that present challenges from external sources.
Which as I said, is about God and humans and our relationship.
And the history of that relationship?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As for God's words to Adam, it can just as easily be understood that his death was guaranteed from the point that he ate and so was the walking dead from that moment on. No need to spiritualize it.
Sorry, that won't work. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats but lives on physically for many years after. If God is truthful, then the death He mentioned was not a physical one.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, that won't work. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats but lives on physically for many years after. If God is truthful, then the death He mentioned was not a physical one.
Nope, no need to shift it to a spiritual death since the moment he ate his death was a certainty. The natural reading is a physical death, there's nothing to indicate that it is some kind of special ethereal "death." There's no need for an immediate death, especially if we consider similar stories from the ANE which are similar. The stripping of immortality from the moment the fruit is eaten is sufficient to explain the "in the very day" without inserting an unnatural, and esoteric, meaning of the word "death."
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,217
11,445
76
✟368,212.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sorry, that won't work. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats but lives on physically for many years after. If God is truthful, then the death He mentioned was not a physical one.
Nope, no need to shift it to a spiritual death since the moment he ate his death was a certainty.
But that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from that tree. So that's what we have to go with. And Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, the death was not a physical one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, that won't work. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats but lives on physically for many years after. If God is truthful, then the death He mentioned was not a physical one.

But that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from that tree. So that's what we have to go with. And Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, the death was not a physical one.
If we completely ignore the historical context and insist on reading it with modern eyes, maybe. But when we understand it alongside its contemporary stories and with sensitivity to the historical context there is no need to woodenly insist on what you're insisting on. Adam died the day that he ate of the tree because God ceased sustaining his life, so he was immediately stripped of immortality and his mortality was guaranteed. So God is truthful and Adam's death is physical, because the moment he ate of the tree he went from eternal life to a certain death.
 
Upvote 0