Question About Evolution and Heaven

forgivensinner001 said:

I'm going to be very brief because I have to go visit the inlaws as soon as my wife gets ready. lol
First I want to say that you guys are awesome. It completely blows my mind to be able to have this discussion with people who aren't attacking me and calling me names but rather reason with me.

Click to expand...

It makes a welcome change for us as well.

I have often heard theistic evolution spoken of but I've never really heard the differences discussed so I have a few questions.

For me it really is a big issue because I can't reconcile the account in Genesis with evolution. I mean if evolution is true then the Genesis account is a lie (I mean the whole bit, including Adam, Eve, the serpent, the geneologies, the Flood, etc.) and if that is a lie, how can I trust any of the Bible? Why would I believe in, much less worship a God who lies to me?

Click to expand...

But it's not a lie. There is a wide range of types of "true" besides "historically true". Jesus used parables to teach theological messages; it is my contention that this is what the Genesis 1-11 stories are - and quite possibly later ones as well; it really doesn't actually matter.

The clues are in the text itself. We have fantastical elements, such as talking snakes and symbolic trees carrying "life" and "knowledge". We have symbolically named people "man" and "mother of all living".

Genesis 1 is an ancient creation hymn designed to counter the ideas of the surrounding cultures that sun, moon, stars and so on are gods. Nah, it says. God made them. In Gen 1 God spends three days preparing the universe - light and dark, sky and sea, land, replete with plants. Then He spends three days filling them - sun, moon and stars, flying things and swimming things, land animals and humans.

This order of creation - everything with a place, and everything in its place, ordered by God, is what the story is trying to tell us. The period of time is merely a narrative structure, with no theological significance that depends upon it being literal. It does have some theological significance - the creation is completed by a seventh day of rest - and seven is a perfect number in Hebrew numerology. Incidently, so is three - three days of perfect preparation - three days of perfect filling. And a completed creation of seven days including a rest day. The signficance of this does not depend upon it being a literal story; if we really believe God inspired the writer, then we can trust that the message God wanted put forward through the narrative is the one that is, regardless of historical accuracy. And of course there is no lie at all in this message.

Genesis 2 is primarily concerned with the relationship between man and woman; it's not concerned really with the creation of the animals so the fact that they are created according to a different chronology from Genesis 1 is theologically unimportant, although I submit it is a problem for a literal reading.

Genesis 3 is a very interesting one - what it's basically saying is this:

'You know what the problem with people is? If you took someone, put them in a perfect environment with all their needs catered for, and just told them there was one thing they shouldn't do, you can bet that (a) they'll do that the moment your back is turned, and (b) they'll blame someone else, who'll blame someone else.' Genesis 3 isn't so much about some ancestor of mine, but rather it is about me. And you. And Sid down the road. It paints a picture of how we could be - in communion with God - and puts the blame clearly down on why we find we're not - we're part of a race estranged from God and living in a network of sin.

At what point did "man" become man? I mean was there a point at which a hominid with no soul gave birth to a child that was human enough to be a "living soul?" Or was it at some point that God said, "Ok, I think they're ready." and placed a soul in one (or two) of them?

Click to expand...

I think, personally (and others think differently - read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God for example) that the "soul" is actually an emergent property of a complex brain. So we started with a primitive "soul" and it became more and more what we have today as our brains evolved. Evolution doesn't concern itself with questions like "at what point are we human and can be resurrected from the dead", and to be honest these questions are interesting but hardly crucial. The problem is really just as present in creationism - did Neanderthal man have a soul? What about Lucy? And so on.

How do Theistic Evolutionists believe God did it? Did He set it all spinning and sit back and watch or did He just literally "do it all Himself" just taking His time? What are some of the theories regarding this and maybe some resources to read more about it?

Click to expand...

The above named book is one of the best. My own take on it is that the scientific phenomena we see as abiogenesis and evolution are the physical outworkings of the creative activity of God. What is chance from any frame of reference within this universe may not be to God. In a sense, He did both of your suggestions - He lets the universe unfold as it will, but He is also in complete control of it. It's just like how in human history He lets us act as free-willed agents, and yet brings His purposes about, working through everything to do so.

Can't really think of anything else right now and it's almost time to go. Thanks.

Peace, Love and Joy to you all in the boundless name of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

[Anglican]And to you[/Anglican]