Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

[SayaOtonashi]

Yom doesn't just mean day

 

[SayaOtonashi]

he Hebrew word yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1, the word yom is used in combination with Hebrew words ereb3 (the word for "evening") and boquer4 (the word for "morning"). The claim has been made that when yom is used with the words "evening" or "morning," it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1

Actually, they don't even get their facts correct. There are 42 verses (not 23) outside Genesis 1 in which yom is used in combination with either "evening" or "morning" (or both).5 The Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" are juxtaposed only 12 times outside Genesis 1.6 In seven of those verses, the word order is reversed from that found in Genesis 1.6 Most of these verses do refer to 24 hour days, since they discuss the sacrificial system. However, a verse from the Psalms does not refer to a 24-hour day:

They who dwell in the ends of the earth stand in awe of Your signs; You make the dawn [boqer] and the sunset [ereb] shout for joy. (Psalm 65:8)

Moses, the author of Genesis 1, also wrote Psalm 90.7 In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night.8 In the next verse, he compares human lives to grass. He says that the grass sprouts in the morning and withers in the evening. Realistically, grasses live at least several days or weeks before dying. Evening and morning in this example do not refer to a 24-hour period of time:

You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning [boqer] they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning [boqer] it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening [ereb] it fades and withers away. (Psalm 90:5-6)

Later, in the same Psalm, Moses includes a plea that God satisfy us with His love in the morning (boqer) that we may sing all our days (a lifetime of days, again, is usually longer than 24 hours):

O satisfy us in the morning [boqer] with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days [yom]. (Psalm 90:14)

Another verse, from Daniel, refers to a period of prophecy:

He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer]; then the holy place will be properly restored." (Daniel 8:14)

Some interpret the period of 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 days, while other calculate it as 1,150 days (2,300 divided by 2).9 Still others interpret the 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 years.10 It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to 24-hour days.

Outside Genesis 1, yom occurs only 4 times in combination with both Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning." The actual word order of "evening" followed by "morning" in combination with yom (as seen in Genesis 1) occurs only once outside Genesis 1. It is ironic that this one verse comes from Daniel 8:26, which defines yom as a period of time at least 3000 years long:

"The vision of the evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer] Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days [yom] in the future." (Daniel 8:26)

Obviously, the claim that "All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day-why would Genesis 1 be the exception" is false, just from this verse - the only verse that perfectly matches the usage found in Genesis 1.

"Evening" has the additional meaning of "ending" and "morning" has the meaning of "dawning" or "beginning".11 The order of "evening morning" is not insignificant. Each day described in Genesis 1 is completed by "evening" (ending) juxtaposed with "morning" (beginning). So, the usage fits the interpretation of the ending of one day and the beginning of the next.

Claim 2: Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour days
The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1

Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13

In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.

A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!

There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:

'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)

For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)

"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)

If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.

Claim 3: Other biblical Hebrew words could have been used to designate long periods of time
The claim is made that other Hebrew words could have been used to represent long periods of time:

"There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1."1

Olam19 and qedem20 were not used in biblical Hebrew to represent long periods of time. Olam is almost always translated "eternity" "eternal" or "forever" in ancient Hebrew.21 Obviously, this would not be used to represent long periods of time. Qedem has the usual meaning of "east."22 Alternatively, it has the meaning of "old", "eternal" or "past." It is not used to represent a period of time in ancient Hebrew. It is interesting that not one example is given to substantiate the claim that either olam or qedem is used to represent a long period of time in biblical Hebrew.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I can honestly say that I don't think I've met an anti-evolutionary creationist on this forum who actually understands the position of evolutionary creation.

I do understand it. It is a belief in the theory of evolution,which is naturalistic,but with a theistic spin. The resulting world-view is a combination of deism and naturalism in regard to the natural world and fideism in regard to the doctrine of creation and the book of Genesis.

It seems that misconceptions about our position abound. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful if we started a thread that dispels the fallacies about what it is that we believe. Maybe we can point others to it when they err in their characterization of us (maybe make this a sticky thread?). I picture this thread as a numbered list that we can all contribute to and I'll add everyone's contributions to the first post, starting with my own (if you have any additions or changes you'd like to make to any of the contributions, please let me know):

Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)

1. The fact that evolutionary creationists do not accept the Genesis creation stories as historical accounts does not mean that we do not take the Scriptures seriously. The Bible is a mix of parable, poetry, historical narrative, and many other types of literary genres. We must approach each book and each genre with humility and with open hearts and minds, and not try apply the same blanket interpretation to all parts of the Bible. Despite the fact that we do not accept the creation stories are historical accounts, we maintain that God is the Creator of all and that He ordained and sustains everything in the universe, as professed by the Nicene Creed. The opening chapters of Genesis profess invaluable teachings about the fallen nature of man, the compassion of God, the promise of a Saviour, the relationship of man with God and nature, and the sanctity of marriage.

The creation accounts in Genesis is written as narratives of real things and events,not written as allegories. The creation of the universe and of living species happened. The creation of the first humans happened. Their fall from a perfect state of grace happened. The few figures of speech and the poetic language of some of the verses do not take away from the historical reality of the whole narrative. Historical truths can be conveyed with figures of speech and poetic language,not just with "literal" prose. If you do not believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are of real things and events,then how can you say that they profess invaluable teachings about God and man? And why would you believe the doctrine that God creates and sustains all things but disbelieve the biblical account of creation? You value the creation accounts as human mythology,rather than as true accounts.

 

[gluadys]

I do understand it. It is a belief in the theory of evolution,which is naturalistic,but with a theistic spin. The resulting world-view is a combination of deism and naturalism in regard to the natural world and fideism in regard to the doctrine of creation and the book of Genesis.

I think you just verified what Mallon said.

The creation accounts in Genesis is written as narratives of real things and events,not written as allegories.

You are correct in saying neither creation account in Genesis is an allegory, and you are correct in saying they are narratives. Your argument falls on the equation of "narrative" with "history". A narrative form does not necessarily convey history.

The creation of the universe and of living species happened. The creation of the first humans happened.

Agreed. And these facts are conveyed in the creation accounts. That does not mean the creation accounts are journalist reports of how these things happened.

The few figures of speech and the poetic language of some of the verses do not take away from the historical reality of the whole narrative.

History is not assured by the paucity of figurative and poetic language. Narrative prose does not confer historical reality on a text. Literary form and history are different issues.

Narrative, including historical narrative can be written in poetry as well as prose. So you can have lots of figures of speech and poetic devices and still have a genuine history. By the same token, the literary form may be quite lacking in figures and poetic language and still not be genuine history.

So all you have said about the literary form of the creation accounts is correct. Problem is, none of that bears on whether or not it is history. That's a different issue entirely.

If you do not believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are of real things and events,

But I do believe that. As noted above, God really created humans; humans really fell into sin. God loves us anyway and acts with justice and mercy to both judge and redeem us. All of that is in the story.

But I don't believe in magic trees and talking snakes--these are obviously not real events but metaphors with deeper meanings.

This is not rejecting belief in the creation accounts, but seeking a deeper understanding of them, just like the many Christian scholars of the Patristic and Middle Ages who sought the true meaning of scripture in various forms of allegorical, analogical and moral implications.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

You are correct in saying neither creation account in Genesis is an allegory, and you are correct in saying they are narratives. Your argument falls on the equation of "narrative" with "history". A narrative form does not necessarily convey history.

They are narratives of things that happened. Historical writing is not limited to the modern,naturalistic manner.

Agreed. And these facts are conveyed in the creation accounts. That does not mean the creation accounts are journalist reports of how these things happened.

A narrative of events does not need to be written in a journalistic manner to be true or historical.

History is not assured by the paucity of figurative and poetic language. Narrative prose does not confer historical reality on a text. Literary form and history are different issues.

Narrative, including historical narrative can be written in poetry as well as prose. So you can have lots of figures of speech and poetic devices and still have a genuine history. By the same token, the literary form
may be quite lacking in figures and poetic language and still not be genuine history.

So all you have said about the literary form of the creation accounts is correct. Problem is, none of that bears on whether or not it is history. That's a different issue entirely.

I know. That was my point. So why doubt that the creation accounts are historical because of the manner in which they were written? Why bring up the fact that they are not written as journalistic reports,as if that was
the standard for all true history?

But I do believe that. As noted above, God really created humans; humans really fell into sin. God loves us anyway and acts with justice and mercy to both judge and redeem us. All of that is in the story.

But I don't believe in magic trees and talking snakes--these are obviously not real events but metaphors with
deeper meanings.

Christians do not believe that the trees of knowledge and of life were magic. And if you believe that paradise existed and that the devil exists,then it is no stretch to believe that he could take the form of a snake and could speak in that form. But even if the devil did not actually take the form of a snake,it was an appropriate symbol of the devil,because the snake was worshipped as a god by pagan cultures,and the prophets knew that demons were behind the pagan gods. Any anyway,the mention of the two trees and the snake are not accounts of God creating things,so they are not relevant to the question of whether the creation accounts describe real
events.

This is not rejecting belief in the creation accounts, but seeking a deeper understanding of them, just like the many Christian scholars of the Patristic and Middle Ages who sought the true meaning of scripture in various forms of allegorical, analogical and moral implications.

Manners of interpretation should not be used to dissolve belief in the actuality of the events recorded in scripture. The Church Fathers felt free to interpret scripture in speculative ways because Christians were secure in their belief that the events recorded in scripture really did happen. God's acts of creation were thought of as immediate acts of his own power. There was no concept among Christians of God creating things in a gradual manner by the power of natural processes. Christians did not even attribute nature with having
creative power of its own. It was understood that only God has the power to create matter and living creatures. There was not an undercurrent of skepticism among Christians that caused them to doubt what
scripture says,and there were not scientific theories of origins that they thought showed what really happened.

If you believe in the creation accounts but regard them as metaphorical rather than as true in themselves,then this belief is so dissolved and relativistic that it is more like disbelief,or belief in a myth. If a narrative of events is not about things that really happened,then it is not,something that should be believed in as if they did happen.

 

[gluadys]

They are narratives of things that happened.

Sure, they are narratives of things that happened in the stories. That doesn't tell us they are narratives of events in human (or planetary) history.

Historical writing is not limited to the modern,naturalistic manner.

A narrative of events does not need to be written in a journalistic manner to be true or historical.

Then why interpret it as if it were an unvarnished report of historical events?

I know. That was my point. So why doubt that the creation accounts are historical because of the manner in which they were written? Why bring up the fact that they are not written as journalistic reports,as if that was
the standard for all true history?

Because that is what most so-called literalists seem to do. They seem to think the accounts cannot be true unless they are literally correct descriptions of historical events--just like a good news or scientific report. I don't know about you, but I have seen dozens of posts where people assert the creation accounts must be history simply because they are narratives.

So they are asserting these accounts must be history because of the way they are written. But that is clearly an incorrect assumption.

One doesn't need to doubt that they are historical to recognize that this is not a sound reason to believe they are historical.

Christians do not believe that the trees of knowledge and of life were magic.

Yes, they do. The trees have properties that actual trees do not have; the properties of imparting eternal life or moral awareness. Trees don't do such things unless they are magic. You may wish to substitute a synonymous label such as "mystic" or "supernatural" but it comes to the same thing.

And if you believe that paradise existed

As an actual geographical place? Why on earth would I believe that?

and that the devil exists,then it is no stretch to believe that he could take the form of a snake and could speak in that form.

Totally off the beam and showing absolutely no respect for a text which you claim is to be understood literally. The literal meaning of "snake" refers to an animal. This story makes not a single reference to the devil. So you are importing an allegory into your alleged literal understanding of the narrative.

In the narrative the creature that addresses the woman is a talking snake. That is the only possible literal meaning. If you insist on a non-literal meaning here, why insist the rest of the narrative must be interpreted literally? If "talking snake" is a figure of the devil, why cannot the woman be a figure of all women, the man a figure of all men, the garden a figure of the primordial state of humanity before there was knowledge of sin, the trees symbolic of the choice between obedience and autonomy? Why can the tree of life not be a figure of Christ, for example? Why does any of this have to be an actual one-time event in history?

Manners of interpretation should not be used to dissolve belief in the actuality of the events recorded in scripture. The Church Fathers felt free to interpret scripture in speculative ways because Christians were secure in their belief that the events recorded in scripture really did happen. God's acts of creation were thought of as immediate acts of his own power. There was no concept among Christians of God creating things in a gradual manner by the power of natural processes.

But now we are aware of the power of natural processes. We are aware that a rainbow is not conjured into being as an immediate act of God's power but is the consequence of a natural process. We are aware that lightning is not literally hurled from heaven by the hand of a deity, but is a consequence of a natural process. And we are aware that all the species in existence today were not raised from the earth instantaneously at a specific moment in time, but are the product of historical modification of ancestral forms by natural process. That includes our own species H. sapiens.

It doesn't make any sense to me to base our understanding of scripture on the historical ignorance of the Church Fathers and Mothers. We laugh today at 6th century Christians like Cosmos Indicopleustas who insisted that Christians must reject the Greek philosophical notion that the earth is a sphere because quite clearly the scriptures present the earth as flat. But even in his own day he was on the fringe. Most Christians of the time, and even back into the second century did not use the ignorance of the biblical writers about the shape of the earth as an excuse to reject what they had come to know as its real shape.

The Galileo affair was more controversial and a bit of a mess, but we no longer use the ignorance of either the biblical writers or Martin Luther or the Inquisition as an excuse to insist the earth has literal foundations and is motionless in space with the sun and stars in orbit around it.

So why cling to a "historical" interpretation of instantaneous separate creations simply because neither the biblical authors nor early Christian interpreters of scripture knew the relevant facts of natural processes pertaining to the origin of species?

If you believe in the creation accounts but regard them as metaphorical rather than as true in themselves,then this belief is so dissolved and relativistic that it is more like disbelief,or belief in a myth.

It is belief in a myth, a myth I consider to be true and deeply revelatory of who God is, who I am, who we all are, and of the predicament of humanity alienated from our Creator. I believe this is an important myth to teach and understand because it reveals the truth of the human condition and offers the hope of restoration to God's intended purpose for us.

The notion that to believe something is a metaphor or a myth is equivalent to not believing it at all is a complete distortion of the experience of evolutionary creationists. Many of us find that the creation accounts become more compelling, more deeply true, more fundamental to our understanding of God, ourselves, sin and salvation than if they were historical events.

Indeed, one of the consequences of perceiving the creation events as myth is that we understand they are not about long ago people; they are about ourselves. I am the man or woman who listens to the snake and eats from the forbidden tree. I am the one who disobeys God. My sin is my responsibility and I can't blame a long-ago ancestor. (or the devil either).

If a narrative of events is not about things that really happened,then it is not,something that should be believed in as if they did happen.

Quite right. That is why I don't believe these narratives as if they did happen.

What I do believe is that God is the creator of all things; that we are a species uniquely endowed with a capacity to know God (created in the image of God) and with unique responsibilities toward the world God made; that we have failed in those responsibilities through egoism and prideful selfishness and so broken the bond of love with our Creator and stand in need of redemption and reconciliation with God, ourselves and our neighbours both human and non-human, and that God has supplied our need through Jesus Christ.

I believe all these things are truly taught in the creation narratives but in a pictorial form rather than as a tome on systematic theology. It is a form of teaching suitable for children and simple people unused to academic discourse and so appropriate for conveying truth that is to be understood by all in every generation. Because the teaching is presented in pictorial form (as myth) its truth does not depend on the events in the narrative being actual history. One might say the creation narratives teach us about reality rather than recount history.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Sure, they are narratives of things that happened in the stories. That doesn't tell us they are narratives of events in human (or planetary) history.

The accounts of the creation of the earth and living creatures are obviously narratives of what happened in the history of the earth.

Then why interpret it as if it were an unvarnished report of historical events?

What do you mean by unvarnished? There are some words that may be figurative of other realities,rather than meaning exactly what they say,but that does not make them deceptions.

Because that is what most so-called literalists seem to do. They seem to think the accounts cannot be true unless they are literally correct descriptions of historical events--just like a good news or scientific report. I don't know about you, but I have seen dozens of posts where people assert the creation accounts must be history simply because they are narratives.

I don't know that "literalists" think that only literal interpretations can be true. No one interprets everything in the Bible literally. People interpret scripture literally where they think it is reasonable to believe it is literally true. And I doubt that literalists regard the creation stories as scientific reports,even though some try to use scientific evidence to confirm the stories.

So they are asserting these accounts must be history because of the way they are written. But that is clearly an incorrect assumption.
One doesn't need to doubt that they are historical to recognize that this is not a sound reason to believe they are historical.

It isn't an incorrect assumption. The creation stories do read as accounts of things that really happened. They are not allegories or parables. An account of the creation of the earth and living species cannot be an allegory or a parable,because we know that the earth and species really were created. The spiritual and moral significance of the stories derive from the reality of the events. With allegories and parables,it is not necessary for real events to be told for there to be spiritual and moral significance. It is usually understood that the stories do not describe things that actually happened.

Yes, they do. The trees have properties that actual trees do not have; the properties of imparting eternal life or moral awareness. Trees don't do such things unless they are magic. You may wish to substitute a synonymous label such as "mystic" or "supernatural" but it comes to the same thing.

Supernatural does not mean the same thing as magic. If God imparts supernatural properties to something physical,that is not magic,but divine power. Magic does involve the supernatural,but it is the demonic supernatural.

You sound like someone who disbelieves in all claims of the supernatural,since you think that "supernatural" means magic.
Do you acknowledge that God is supernatural,and that he uses his power in the world?

As an actual geographical place? Why on earth would I believe that?

Because God planted a garden in Eden,which was on earth,"to the east". Eden means fertile plain in Sumerian. How could it not be an actual geographical place?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Totally off the beam and showing absolutely no respect for a text which you claim is to be understood literally. The literal meaning of "snake" refers to an animal. This story makes not a single reference to the devil. So you are importing an allegory into your alleged literal understanding of the narrative.

I didn't claim that the snake had to be interpreted literally. I do know that the image of the snake was worshipped as an idol by pagan cultures,and that the writer of Genesis used the snake as an image of Satan,because it is Satan who tempts humanity to sin. The story is not allegorical for using an image. The snake is Satan,and Satan is a real being,and he really did tempt Adam and Eve into sin.

In the narrative the creature that addresses the woman is a talking snake. That is the only possible literal meaning. If you insist on a non-literal meaning here, why insist the rest of the narrative must be interpreted literally?

I don't insist everything should be interpreted literally,I say it actually happened. Actuality does not need to be expressed "literally".

If "talking snake" is a figure of the devil, why cannot the woman be a figure of all women, the man a figure of all men, the garden a figure of the primordial state of humanity before there was knowledge of sin, the trees symbolic of the choice between obedience and autonomy? Why can the tree of life not be a figure of Christ, for example? Why does any of this have to be an actual one-time event in history?

They can be taken that way,and they have been taken that way by theologians. But the snake in the Garden is certainly intended to represent Satan,and it is Satan,not just a mental connection.

But now we are aware of the power of natural processes.

The powers of natural processes are ordained by God. Natural science sometimes attributes powers to natural processes that they do not have,because it is committed to the naturalistic view of nature,which leads to explanations that portray nature as self-creating and self-sufficient,an infinite regress of mechanisms and reactions.[/QUOTE]

We are aware that a rainbow is not conjured into being as an immediate act of God's power but is the consequence of a natural process.

A rainbow is not merely a consequence of natural processes,it is a consequence of God's creative action.
God creates and sustains natural processes. And God's power is not a matter of conjuring. Again,you show your disbelief in divine power by deliberately misrepresenting it as magic.

We are aware that lightning is not literally hurled from heaven by the hand of a deity, but is a consequence of a natural process.

It happens by the power of God,like everything else in nature. Didn't you ever learn that God is the cause behind all natural causes?

And we are aware that all the species in existence today were not raised from the earth instantaneously at a specific moment in time, but are the product of historical modification of ancestral forms by natural process. That includes our own species H. sapiens.

Who is "we"? Are people in general believers in the theory of evolution? I would agree that all the species were created all at once,but they certainly must have each been created immediately,because they exist in the forms of individual creatures,which come into existence immediately. There is no real evolution or modification into existence of species. There is only the immediate act of coming into existence of species,as creatures. The processes of evolution - natural selection and genetic mutation - do not have the power to produce species,because they are not creative processes. They don't produce individual creatures. NS is only a process of elimination,and GM only changes a few minor traits. It doesn't matter how many centuries a species lives through,there cannot be the drastic changes that the theory of evolution claims to have occurred.

 

[gluadys]

I didn't claim that the snake had to be interpreted literally. I do know that the image of the snake was worshipped as an idol by pagan cultures,and that the writer of Genesis used the snake as an image of Satan,because it is Satan who tempts humanity to sin. The story is not allegorical for using an image. The snake is Satan,and Satan is a real being,and he really did tempt Adam and Eve into sin.

The point is that not a bit of this comes from the story in Genesis 3. It is all later interpretations of the story. We do not know from this text itself that the author intended the snake to be anything else than a talking snake. If he did intend it as a symbol, it might well be the symbol of wisdom, for that was a cultural icon of the time. That would be appropriate for the Tree of Knowledge and would fit with Eve's realization that the fruit was desirable, because it made one wise.

Outside of the book of Job, Satan has practically no role in the OT and that role is ambiguous at best. So the identification of the snake in the garden with Satan is very much a matter of later commentary and not a basis for asserting that commentary as fact. We have no evidence whatsoever that this identification existed in the mind of the author of Genesis 3.

A bit of humility toward the text is a propos here. Look at what the text in its own integrity actually says and attempt to leave traditional commentary out of the picture. Layers and layers of unexamined commentary get in the way of reading the text as it is. Where IN THIS TEXT is there any indication of Satan? There isn't. That has to be imported from elsewhere.

I don't insist everything should be interpreted literally,I say it actually happened. Actuality does not need to be expressed "literally".

That is good. In most anti-evolution circles "literal" bears the weight of too many conflated meanings.

I studied and taught literature and how to understand literature and literary motifs and devices. It pains me when people say "literal" when they mean something quite different.

To me, "literal" refers to the most used, most readily accepted, most common sense meaning of the word or phrase in the text i.e. to what it means in everyday language used apart from any intention to be figurative. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with genre or with whether something actually happened or not. Literal meanings exist in all genres, including lyric poetry and certainly exist in fictional as well as historical narratives.

But the snake in the Garden is certainly intended to represent Satan,and it is Satan,not just a mental connection.

It is most certainly a mental connection. You can't have a figurative use of a word or phrase without such a mental connection of the two terms. But I don't know that this mental connection was made by the biblical writer. I only know it turns up in later commentaries where interpreters couple this text with the text of Revelation identifying Satan as "that ancient serpent".

Now if you want to say the writer of Revelation made a mental connection between Satan and the serpent in the garden, I have no problem with that. He certainly knew the Genesis story and may well have intended to link his Satan to the serpent in the garden.

But the reverse is not the case. The author of the Genesis story was totally unaware of the connection being made by the author of Revelation. It is entirely possible that the very concept of Satan had no meaning to him, for it appears late in the OT and doesn't come into full flower until post-Exilic times. The character and role of Satan emerged as the supreme enemy of God and tempter of humanity in the apocalyptic literature of the inter-testamental period. This is long after Genesis was written.

So we have only the text in Genesis as a clue to what the serpent meant to the earlier author. Unless one is a post-mortem mind-reader, I don't see any way one can assert with certainty that this author intended his snake in the garden to represent Satan.

The powers of natural processes are ordained by God. Natural science sometimes attributes powers to natural processes that they do not have,because it is committed to the naturalistic view of nature,which leads to explanations that portray nature as self-creating and self-sufficient,an infinite regress of mechanisms and reactions.


A rainbow is not merely a consequence of natural processes,it is a consequence of God's creative action.


It happens by the power of God,like everything else in nature. Didn't you ever learn that God is the cause behind all natural causes?

I most certainly did. And I am very glad to hear you speak in this way. But it is not just scientists who have mentally removed the power of God from natural processes. It is all too common among believers as well. Take a look on this thread at the posts by Primi Agminis who bills himself as a Progressive Christian Deist.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7767806/


The only thing startling to me about this depiction of God as one who sets natural processes going and then walks away, merely checking in from time to time is that he actually knows this is deism and self-identifies as a Deist.

I see anti-evolution Christians making precisely the same assumptions about God and natural process all the time, even while they vehemently assert they are not Deists. Well, they don't self-identify as Deist, they are even offended by such an idea. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

I much prefer the way you identify natural process as a locus of God's power and refuse to separate natural process from the action of God. On this point you are making much the same argument as evolutionary creationists.

It bothers me that so many Christians are unable to even articulate that natural processes and events that have natural explanations are God's present work and evidence of God. They have retreated into a view that can only identify God's actions with non-natural, miraculous events.

Perhaps my use of "magic" to refer to such events is born of my frustration in dealing with this mindset. It is bad enough that non-believers view "natural phenomena" as being "not-of-God". It is atrocious that believers go along with that view, even unwittingly.

It seems to me that much of the fear of science exemplified on many of these forums has its roots in a view of natural process that is essentially mechanistic and deistic that has been absorbed into Christian thinking.

IMO Retrieving a view of natural process that is fully connected to and espressive of God's power is essential to overcoming this theological deficiency.

Who is "we"? Are people in general believers in the theory of evolution?

All of us who have benefited from the knowledge made accessible by a scientific investigation of the natural world. It is not a matter of belief, but of verified knowledge and well-founded and fruitful hypotheses leading to still more information.

I would agree that all the species were created all at once,but they certainly must have each been created immediately,because they exist in the forms of individual creatures,which come into existence immediately.

Are you speaking of individual zygotes? I take it that you are not denying the process of embryological development.

However, please do not confuse individual organisms with those populations we call "species". Species is a term referring to a collective. While one can say that each organism comes into existence immediately, the contrary is true of species.

After all a species remains intact despite the births and deaths of individual members.

There is no real evolution or modification into existence of species. There is only the immediate act of coming into existence of species,as creatures.

Well, it seems to me you are completely conflating singular and plural here. A species does not originate as a single creature. A species originates as a population. And it normally comes into existence gradually as a consequence of the process of speciation which is itself usually gradual. During the whole process of speciation (which may take a good many generations) individual members of the population are born and die. But the existence of the population is continuous. It does not happen that one species (a population) suddenly becomes another species (a different population) instantaneously.

The processes of evolution - natural selection and genetic mutation - do not have the power to produce species,because they are not creative processes.

That is quite simply untrue. But I grant that the process of speciation is required as well as the two you have named.

They don't produce individual creatures.

That is true. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon. But you are using the term "creative" in an idiosyncratic manner if you limit it to the generation of single individuals.

NS is only a process of elimination,and GM only changes a few minor traits.

That is a common and dismissive mischaracterization of the mechanisms of evolution. It is a comforting mantra to justify denial.

It doesn't matter how many centuries a species lives through,there cannot be the drastic changes that the theory of evolution claims to have occurred.

Why not? I have never understood how the accumulation of many small changes cannot have, as a final consequence a rather startling change in the descendants as compared to their ancestors. The theory of evolution does not claim that drastic changes occurred as single events in one generation.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

The point is that not a bit of this comes from the story in Genesis 3. It is all later interpretations of the story. We do not know from this text itself that the author intended the snake to be anything else than a talking snake. If he did intend it as a symbol, it might well be the symbol of wisdom, for that was a cultural icon of the time. That would be appropriate for the Tree of Knowledge and would fit with Eve's realization that the fruit was desirable, because it made one wise.

Outside of the book of Job, Satan has practically no role in the OT and that role is ambiguous at best. So the identification of the snake in the garden with Satan is very much a matter of later commentary and not a basis for asserting that commentary as fact. We have no evidence whatsoever that this identification existed in the mind of the author of Genesis 3.

The tradition of the Jews and of the Catholic Church identifies the snake as Satan. (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2)

The Bible must be read and interpreted as a whole,and according to Catholic tradition.

A bit of humility toward the text is a propos here. Look at what the text in its own integrity actually says and attempt to leave traditional commentary out of the picture. Layers and layers of unexamined commentary get in the way of reading the text as it is. Where IN THIS TEXT is there any indication of Satan? There isn't. That has to be imported from elsewhere.

Sacred scripture originated and belongs to the Jewish and Catholic traditions. it is not just a matter of commentary,but meaning. We cannot leave traditional meaning and commentary out of consideration. And the commentaries have been thoroughly examined.

It is most certainly a mental connection. You can't have a figurative use of a word or phrase without such a mental connection of the two terms.

It is an identification,not just a mental connection. Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan,not a mere snake.

But I don't know that this mental connection was made by the biblical writer. I only know it turns up in later commentaries where interpreters couple this text with the text of Revelation identifying Satan as "that ancient serpent".

Now if you want to say the writer of Revelation made a mental connection between Satan and the serpent in the garden, I have no problem with that. He certainly knew the Genesis story and may well have intended to link his Satan to the serpent in the garden.

But the reverse is not the case. The author of the Genesis story was totally unaware of the connection being made by the author of Revelation. It is entirely possible that the very concept of Satan had no meaning to him, for it appears late in the OT and doesn't come into full flower until post-Exilic times. The character and role of Satan emerged as the supreme enemy of God and tempter of humanity in the apocalyptic literature of the inter-testamental period. This is long after Genesis was written.

It is not possible that Satan was unknown to the author of Genesis. The author is God. And the human writer could not have been unaware of fallen angels or demons,or the fact that they tempt men to sin.

Isaiah compared the King of Babylon to Satan.

(Isaiah 14:12-15)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit.

So we have only the text in Genesis as a clue to what the serpent meant to the earlier author.

No,we have other scripture passages,and the traditional understanding of the Jews and the Church.

Unless one is a post-mortem mind-reader, I don't see any way one can assert with certainty that this author intended his snake in the garden to represent Satan.

The truth of the traditional interpretation does not depend upon the human author's intention.
The words of scripture often convey more than what the human authors may have intended,and latent meanings are perceived or become clear in later times.

 

[theFijian]

The Bible must be read and interpreted as a whole,and according to Catholic tradition.

...if you're a good Catholic.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

...if you're a good Catholic.

The Catholic Church was the only authentic Church of the early centuries of Christianity. The New Testament books were written by members of the Church and the canon of scripture was decided upon by Pope Damasus and the Council of Carthage.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The Catholic Church was the only authentic Church of the early centuries of Christianity. The New Testament books were written by members of the Church and the canon of scripture was decided upon by Pope Damasus and the Council of Carthage.

This is simply not even close to being true.

The very books that you say were written by members of your "church" and supposedly were assigned to the canon by your "pope" list a dozen or more "churches" besides your particular church on their pages.

How silly not to see that.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Any system of belief concerning origins that includes death and pain existing before the fall of the first Adam is spiritually bankrupt.

Theistic evolution is not acceptable to a Bible believing Christian on so many levels they should be evident to anyone with the Spirit of God indwelling them IMO.

 

[heweeps]

Catholic Church yes, Roman Catholic Chuch no.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Catholic Church yes, Roman Catholic Chuch no.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

This is simply not even close to being true.

The very books that you say were written by members of your "church" and supposedly were assigned to the canon by your "pope" list a dozen or more "churches" besides your particular church on their pages.

How silly not to see that.

The local churches were all part of the whole,universal Church. Catholic means belonging to the whole or universal. It was Jesus' intention that his followers would all be one flock.



"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

"The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Catholic Church yes, Roman Catholic Chuch no.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a separate thing from the Catholic Church. The word "Roman" refers to the jurisdiction that the local church of Rome has over Latin rite churches,as distinct from the Greek and Eastern churches,or the schismatic Orthodox and Anglican churches. The title Roman Catholic did not come into common use until after the protestant revolt against the Church. It was used by protestants to portray the Catholic Church as a corrupt,tyrannical human institution (like the Roman Empire) and not the Church founded by Christ. But the saints of the Church throughout the centuries acknowledged the church of Rome as having divine authority over the whole Church.



"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all." Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

Scripture Catholic - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

 

[Marvin Knox]

The local churches were all part of the whole,universal Church. Catholic means belonging to the whole or universal. It was Jesus' intention that his followers would all be one flock.

I agree

Therefore the term "Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron. You can't be part of the universal church and identify with the church of Rome alone.

You've been listening to your own propaganda for too long.

I, and over a billion other believers, are not Roman. We do not subscribe to Roman doctrine. As a matter of fact - most of us believe that Roman doctrine amounts to a gospel different than the one once for all delivered to the saints.

You must know that if you've been around for a while.

The Eastern churches never have been associated with your Roman thing and the Western churches have been through a reformation that cost many lives.

The price was very high. But we have the scriptures back in the hands of the people and the gospel has been rescued from Roman error. If you choose to cling to error, that is your choice.

As far as winning any thinking person back to your strange interpretations and suppressions of the laity - the odds are pretty slim now that the cat is out of the bag.

Just let it go - at least for here and now.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Willtor]

Any system of belief concerning origins that includes death and pain existing before the fall of the first Adam is spiritually bankrupt.

Spiritual death, to be sure. But not physical death. That would be absurd since, even in the literal reading, there was cell death and plant death before the Fall.

Theistic evolution is not acceptable to a Bible believing Christian on so many levels they should be evident to anyone with the Spirit of God indwelling them IMO.

So... logically, there shouldn't be any Bible-believing TEs. And yet there are! You've made a mistake, somewhere.