Question for Theistic Evolutionists

[Marc15]

I am aware that the Bible is of Christianity and Charles Darwin was an atheist. This is all irrelevant and is no argument against TE, nothing but strawmans. God never says that the world was created in six days, and Genesis does not illustrate a chronological six day creation account. I listen to what scientists say about evolution and that is nothing over what God has said, and my argument of why Genesis is allegory is not spoken of by scientists or even the atheist you are referring to.

Yes he does say it. Read Genesis 1. Genesis is chronological. Show me how its not.

 

[Marc15]

Do I need a point to be sick of something?

Oh lol sorry dude, I thought you were trying to make a point.

 

[elopez]

Yes he does say it. Read Genesis 1. Genesis is chronological. Show me how its not.

Dude, pay attention. I've already showed that, and you have yet to respond to it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Oh lol sorry dude, I thought you were trying to make a point.

I appreciate your sense of humor and your inquisitive mind. Accept my friendship and good tidings to you in Jesus name.

 

[Marc15]

I appreciate your sense of humor and your inquisitive mind. Accept my friendship and good tidings to you in Jesus name.

Friendship accepted. Our opinions may differ on the begining, but we our all one in Christ. The Grace of Lord Jesus be with you.

 

[Marc15]

Dude, pay attention. I've already showed that, and you have yet to respond to it.

And I only have on thing to say about the wiki response you are giving. If the sun was created on the fourth day, how could there have even been a day one? For days to transpire the sun must be present, and this is the most basic science ever. Saying otherwise is just ridiculous.

Just because there is no sun doesn't mean there aren't hours.

 

[elopez]

Just because there is no sun doesn't mean there aren't hours.

Yeah, that is too ridiculous of you to say for me to continue. Believing that is what I question above anything you do about my beliefs of evolution.

 

[Marc15]

Yeah, that is too ridiculous of you to say for me to continue. Believing that is what I question above anything you do about my beliefs of evolution.

How is that ridiculous?

 

[elopez]

How is that ridiculous?

Really? Do you not understand that when the earth rotates in respect to the sun the result are days and nights? Without the sun there can be no days.

 

[elopez]

You need to start paying attention in you science class if you are claiming there can be days and hours without the sun. And if you are that opposed to science where as you disagree something is is seriously wrong because science and religion are not incompatible.

 

[Marc15]

let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

Genesis 1:14

See, God set them in Harmony with 24 hours.

You need to start paying attention in you science class if you are claiming there can be days and hours without the sun. And if you are that opposed to science where as you disagree something is is seriously wrong because science and religion are not incompatible.

I would like to say that I DO pay attention in my "science" class.(Im in biology right now) We did study evolution, I don't agree with it, but I still payed attention. I got an A in the test. And I'm not opposed to science. Look up intelligent design.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You need to start paying attention in you science class if you are claiming there can be days and hours without the sun. And if you are that opposed to science where as you disagree something is is seriously wrong because science and religion are not incompatible.

And You need to understand that not everything is literal and calling a day a specific amount of time does not necessarily have anything to do with the rotation of the earth on it's axis. If you don't understand symbolism, I suggest you research the term.

 

[gluadys]

I just have a question. How can you explain that you believe in both evolution and the bible. The words evolution or evolve is not used once in the bible. The New testament even has refrences to Adam and Eve.(No Adam and Eve were not just two "special people" or "A whole group of people" The bible is clear the Adam was a man. Genesis 2:7.

Actually, the Hebrew in Gen. 2:7 says "the man" not "a man". And in Hebrew, as in many other languages, the definite article often indicates a type rather than an individual. It is like saying "The LORD God formed Man."
(English is a notable exception to this rule. We do the opposite and leave out the definite article when speaking of a whole class or type.)

References to people in a story don't mean the story is historical unless you have other reasons to show they are.

And also there is nothing in Genesis to indicate its an allegory. Why do you listen to what one silly man said and not what God said. Since your implying that Genesis is not true you are calling God a liar.

Allegory is just one kind of non-historical writing. Or did you mean to include all kinds of non-historical writing in this term?

No one is implying Genesis is not true. Do you think everything non-historical is not true? e.g. Jesus' parables?

We are all trying to listen to what God said. Some of us believe that God gives us some teaching in stories---just as Jesus did. (Jesus said he only did what he saw the Father doing.)

Im just wondering how you believe in Evolution and the bible. The concept of Evolution is not biblical.

The concept of outer space is not biblical either. Does that mean it's not true?

btw the creationWiki article is meaningless. While all the processes he names produce Light, none of them produce Day. And Genesis is quite clear that the Light created on Day 1 is also Day and that each day from day 1-3 has an evening and a morning. This is quite impossible without the sun.

This was noted by the Church Fathers who took it to mean that Genesis 1 is not intended as ordinary history. Origen (185-254) considered a "historical" view of Genesis "foolish". As he says in his De Principiis:

What intelligent person can imagine that there was a first “day,” then a second and a third “day”—evening and morning—without the sun, the moon, and the stars? And that the first “day”—if it makes sense to call it such—existed even without a sky?

Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden in the East and placed in it a tree of life, visible and physical, so that by biting into its fruit one would obtain life? And that by eating from another tree, one would come to know good and evil? And when it is said that God walked in the garden in the evening and that Adam hid himself behind a tree, I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen. (p.71)
​

Some people today suppose that it is only because of modern science that the historical view of the bible is called into question. But this is not the case at all. Early Christians, and also Jewish commentators contemporary with them, often found it more sensible to treat these passages of scripture non-historically. To Origen, it was obvious that Genesis 2-3 was not a literal history just from the content of the story.


As sfs says, where else would you read about a talking snake, a man named Man and a tree that gives life and suppose that it is historical? Why should we have problems thinking that scripture is not being historical here?

It is intended Historically. There is nothing to indicate it's an allegory.

The question of literary style and the question of history are two different questions that are sometimes improperly rolled into one----as if history could never be told in poetic form, for example. But in ancient times it was quite common to put history into poetic form (because it had to be remembered orally before it was put in writing and poetry is easier to remember.)

There is a good deal of poetic style in Genesis 1:1-2:4, but that would not mean it is non-historical. Genesis 2:4ff is not poetic, but that doesn't mean it is historical.

So, literary style doesn't really tell us when something is intended as history.

What do you think would be a good clue for knowing when something is intended as history?

I am aware that the Bible is of Christianity and Charles Darwin was an atheist.

This is factually incorrect. Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He teetered a bit between theism. deism and agnosticism after he left the church, but he never embraced atheism. He also never intended his theory to be anti-theist.

 

[elopez]

Genesis 1:14

See, God set them in Harmony with 24 hours.



I would like to say that I DO pay attention in my "science" class.(Im in biology right now) We did study evolution, I don't agree with it, but I still payed attention. I got an A in the test. And I'm not opposed to science. Look up intelligent design.

Biological evolution really has nothing to do with the science behind the earth rotating around the sun and what that implies. Intelligent design is not science if you are claiming there can be days without the sun. That is not science nor is it intelligent.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Biological evolution really has nothing to do with the science behind the earth rotating around the sun and what that implies. Intelligent design is not science if you are claiming there can be days without the sun. That is not science nor is it intelligent.

Are you contending that whatever is not science is not intelligent?

 

[elopez]

This is factually incorrect. Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He teetered a bit between theism. deism and agnosticism after he left the church, but he never embraced atheism. He also never intended his theory to be anti-theist.

There is something to indicate Darwin was agnostic but also that he showed an atheistic stance as the arguments he had considered and advocated were atheistic. And he definitely was not theist even though he may have been.

 

[elopez]

Are you contending that whatever is not science is not intelligent?

No, that is what you think I am contending.

 

[Marc15]

Actually, the Hebrew in Gen. 2:7 says "the man" not "a man". And in Hebrew, as in many other languages, the definite article often indicates a type rather than an individual. It is like saying "The LORD God formed Man."
(English is a notable exception to this rule. We do the opposite and leave out the definite article when speaking of a whole class or type.)

References to people in a story don't mean the story is historical unless you have other reasons to show they are.




Allegory is just one kind of non-historical writing. Or did you mean to include all kinds of non-historical writing in this term?

No one is implying Genesis is not true. Do you think everything non-historical is not true? e.g. Jesus' parables?

We are all trying to listen to what God said. Some of us believe that God gives us some teaching in stories---just as Jesus did. (Jesus said he only did what he saw the Father doing.)




The concept of outer space is not biblical either. Does that mean it's not true?

btw the creationWiki article is meaningless. While all the processes he names produce Light, none of them produce Day. And Genesis is quite clear that the Light created on Day 1 is also Day and that each day from day 1-3 has an evening and a morning. This is quite impossible without the sun.

This was noted by the Church Fathers who took it to mean that Genesis 1 is not intended as ordinary history. Origen (185-254) considered a "historical" view of Genesis "foolish". As he says in his De Principiis:

What intelligent person can imagine that there was a first “day,” then a second and a third “day”—evening and morning—without the sun, the moon, and the stars? And that the first “day”—if it makes sense to call it such—existed even without a sky?

Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden in the East and placed in it a tree of life, visible and physical, so that by biting into its fruit one would obtain life? And that by eating from another tree, one would come to know good and evil? And when it is said that God walked in the garden in the evening and that Adam hid himself behind a tree, I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen. (p.71)
​

Some people today suppose that it is only because of modern science that the historical view of the bible is called into question. But this is not the case at all. Early Christians, and also Jewish commentators contemporary with them, often found it more sensible to treat these passages of scripture non-historically. To Origen, it was obvious that Genesis 2-3 was not a literal history just from the content of the story.


As sfs says, where else would you read about a talking snake, a man named Man and a tree that gives life and suppose that it is historical? Why should we have problems thinking that scripture is not being historical here?




The question of literary style and the question of history are two different questions that are sometimes improperly rolled into one----as if history could never be told in poetic form, for example. But in ancient times it was quite common to put history into poetic form (because it had to be remembered orally before it was put in writing and poetry is easier to remember.)

There is a good deal of poetic style in Genesis 1:1-2:4, but that would not mean it is non-historical. Genesis 2:4ff is not poetic, but that doesn't mean it is historical.

So, literary style doesn't really tell us when something is intended as history.

What do you think would be a good clue for knowing when something is intended as history?






This is factually incorrect. Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He teetered a bit between theism. deism and agnosticism after he left the church, but he never embraced atheism. He also never intended his theory to be anti-theist.

My responses to your questions

1: Could I see a source that says that

2: It said Jesus was often speaking in parables. It does not say Genesis is allegory.

3:No, but it doesn't say that it doesn't exist. Genesis tells us how the Earth and life were created, which is saying that evolution isn't true.

4: Origen also believe that demons could be with God. He also believed in reincarnation. (Go to his wikipedia article. Info is cited.)

 

[Marc15]

Biological evolution really has nothing to do with the science behind the earth rotating around the sun and what that implies. Intelligent design is not science if you are claiming there can be days without the sun. That is not science nor is it intelligent.

Science is based on observation. And thats what intelligent design is based on.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, that is what you think I am contending.

Then what were you contending? And Please, don't tell me that you are a psychic and can read my mind to tell me what it is that I think. I may not be inscrutable but my thoughts are my own.