Reconciling Evolution with the Bible

[faceofbear]

Without simplistic answers such as, "Genesis is meant to be taken literal," how do you reconcile Genesis with Evolution?

I have many obstacles preventing me from full fledged Christianity, and this is a prominent one. I am involved with science heavily and I do not see evolution as a hypothesis anymore than gravity. I know that it is fact. So, I'm not willing to debate this topic.

I would just like sources, references, reason, anything that helps reconcile the Bible with evolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

Without simplistic answers such as, "Genesis is meant to be taken literal," how do you reconcile Genesis with Evolution?

I have many obstacles preventing me from full fledged Christianity, and this is a prominent one. I am involved with science heavily and I do not see evolution as a hypothesis anymore than gravity. I know that it is fact. So, I'm not willing to debate this topic.

I would just like sources, references, reason, anything that helps reconcile the Bible with evolution.

You can't. Evolution says that man evolved, The Scriptures state that man was created by God in His image. If your faith is in the teachings of science you will reject the Scriptures. If your faith is in the Scriptures you will understand that science is the study of the natural world, and can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.

Since I know the Creator personally, I know evolution to be incorrect. I can tell you that logically it is impossible to reconcile a supernatural creation using natural law. If you are a Christian, you know that the supernatural exists. You know that there are 333 miracles in the Scriptures which are presented as actual events. If natural law is Lord of the universe, then they must all be false. If God is Lord of the universe, then the answer of Creation lies with the Creator not withing the physical laws of the creation.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Genesis is pretty clearly a metaphor. Especially if you look at stories like Noah's Ark, which is clearly a metaphor for salvation.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis aren't new. Here's what Origin of Alexandria said:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."

CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book IV (Origen)

 

[graceandpeace]

Without simplistic answers such as, "Genesis is meant to be taken literal," how do you reconcile Genesis with Evolution?

I have many obstacles preventing me from full fledged Christianity, and this is a prominent one. I am involved with science heavily and I do not see evolution as a hypothesis anymore than gravity. I know that it is fact. So, I'm not willing to debate this topic.

I would just like sources, references, reason, anything that helps reconcile the Bible with evolution.

The Genesis creation stories are myths. Meaning, they are not literal factual accounts, but rather stories written to convey certain theological truths. For example, one truth from the stories is that unlike the surrounding cultures with multiple deities who were chaotic or worse, here in Genesis we meet one God who creates everything, orderly & good.

So, I think trying to "reconcile" Genesis & evolution is not needed. Genesis deals with theology, & evolution is a scientific topic. The Bible should not be read as a science textbook.

 

[hedrick]

I think you'll find that most liberal Christians, as well as moderates such as mainline and the more liberal end of evangelicalism, don't play games like equating a day to an age, or other ways to make the text look literally true. Rather they say frankly that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are two different traditions that are not historical.

Where we differ from conservative Christians is in what we think the Bible is. We think the Bible is a human document that describes the encounters of Israel, and the early Church, with God. God certainly reveals himself. He speaks through prophets and others. He speaks through Jesus. The Bible shows us that revelation. But the Bible is still the sacred traditions of Israel and the Church, and is told by people who have a very different understanding of the world than we do.

I believe that whoever put together the Torah (and it probably wasn't just one person at one time) included Genesis because they were giving us Israel's sacred traditions. Not because they were trying to construct objective history and thought Genesis was that. Did the editors know that some of the material wasn't historical? That's hard to tell. I'm sure they believed things that we don't today. But it's hard to believe that they didn't see that Gen 1 and 2 can't both be literally true. I assume they are the creation accounts from two different groups within Israel. You'll see this kind of thing throughout Genesis, where different accounts seem to have been woven together.

 

[faceofbear]

Genesis is pretty clearly a metaphor. Especially if you look at stories like Noah's Ark, which is clearly a metaphor for salvation.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis aren't new. Here's what Origin of Alexandria said:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."

CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book IV (Origen)

This is interesting. I had no idea. What, then, is the explanation for genealogies?

 

[HammerOfThor]

This is interesting. I had no idea. What, then, is the explanation for genealogies?

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15456/in-theistic-evolution-when-do-the-genealogies-in-genesis-become-real

 

[faceofbear]

Hmm, doesn't seem like a very satisfying treatment of it. Thank you though. I do like the idea of Genesis sort-of being a foreshadowing of events. Interesting.

 

[hedrick]

This is interesting. I had no idea. What, then, is the explanation for genealogies?

There are many sources for the names. Some come from earlier traditions. Some represent occupations, e.g. the first smith. Some are the traditional founders of countries. Some we may never know. This article gives a sense of that, The Bible and Interpretation, though I believe (based on his institution) the author also thinks they are historical.

 

[elopez]

how do you reconcile Genesis with Evolution?

What about the Bible specifically?

 

[HammerOfThor]

Hmm, doesn't seem like a very satisfying treatment of it. Thank you though. I do like the idea of Genesis sort-of being a foreshadowing of events. Interesting.

It's more satisfying than believing that somehow the concept of a literal 24-hour day could exist before the sun, the sky, and the stars were created.

 

[Blue Wren]

The Genesis creation stories are myths. Meaning, they are not literal factual accounts, but rather stories written to convey certain theological truths. For example, one truth from the stories is that unlike the surrounding cultures with multiple deities who were chaotic or worse, here in Genesis we meet one God who creates everything, orderly & good.

So, I think trying to "reconcile" Genesis & evolution is not needed. Genesis deals with theology, & evolution is a scientific topic. The Bible should not be read as a science textbook.

 

[Blue Wren]

Genesis, is it an allegory. No need, to reconcile it with evolution. There is no conflict, at all, no. Creationism, it is almost nonexistent, in Europe. I was surprised, very much, when I learned about it, from this place. It is an American brand of theology, for the fundamentalists. The church I've gone to, whilst in the US for a year, they of course, do not believe in creationism. We had Evolution Weekend, in February, to celebrate Christianity & science.

It is a shame, that this ignorance creationists spread, it stops people, from becoming Christians. It does not honour God, I do not think, no.

 

[hedrick]

It is a shame, that this ignorance creationists spread, it stops people, from becoming Christians.

This isn't true in the US. Take a look at "Exploring Christianity" or other groups where people who are considering Christianity post. You'll see that in the US, few people are interested in Christianity as you and I know it. If they're concerned about evolution, they want some explanation of how they can accept evolution and also believe that the Bible is literally true.

 

[Blue Wren]

This isn't true in the US. Take a look at "Exploring Christianity" or other groups where people who are considering Christianity post. You'll see that in the US, few people are interested in Christianity as you and I know it. If they're concerned about evolution, they want some explanation of how they can accept evolution and also believe that the Bible is literally true.

The OP's flag, it is for the US??

Did I not properly understand this "Without simplistic answers such as, "Genesis is meant to be taken literal," how do you reconcile Genesis with Evolution?

I have many obstacles preventing me from full fledged Christianity, and this is a prominent one. I am involved with science heavily and I do not see evolution as a hypothesis anymore than gravity. I know that it is fact. So, I'm not willing to debate this topic." ?

I think the more common problem, it is not with people who were never Christians, becoming Christians, no. It's with the Canadian and American fundamentalists, who were raised believing evolution is against the Bible, who then have a problem keeping their Christianity, and accepting science. I've read, several threads, on this forum, mainly from young people, struggling to reconcile their Christianity, with science.

Add- this thread, it is about creationism, driving Christians away http://www.christianforums.com/t7879732/

 

[hedrick]

The OP's flag, it is for the US??

His location says Texas. Despite the impression some Texans have, it’s still part of the US.

Did I not properly understand this "Without simplistic answers such as, "Genesis is meant to be taken literal," how do you reconcile Genesis with Evolution?

I have many obstacles preventing me from full fledged Christianity, and this is a prominent one. I am involved with science heavily and I do not see evolution as a hypothesis anymore than gravity. I know that it is fact. So, I'm not willing to debate this topic." ?

The OP is in fact being hindered by the evolution issue. But he specifically posted this in the liberal forum. So he’s not the typical US Christian, or CF member.

I think the more common problem, it is not with people who were never Christians, becoming Christians, no. It's with the Canadian and American fundamentalists, who were raised believing evolution is against the Bible, who then have a problem keeping their Christianity, and accepting science. I've read, several threads, on this forum, mainly from young people, struggling to reconcile their Christianity, with science.

Add- this thread, it is about creationism, driving Christians away http://www.christianforums.com/t7879732/

I agree with you. But if you follow the outcomes of those struggles, I don’t think many of them become liberal Christians. I think they either find some way to continue a literal view, or stop being Christians. I don't think this is due to ignorance. Most people in the US know that there are Christians who accept science and Biblical scholarship. But most of our population seem to be convinced that these folks (which would include me) aren't real Christians, and if they can't believe conservative Christianity, they aren't going to be Christian at all.

I would love to think that European-style Christianity could help deal with the problems of fundamentalism in the US. However moderate and liberal Christianity have consistently been losing members in the US since the mid 20th Cent. Originally conservatives were growing. But I don’t think that’s true any more. People are losing their faith entirely, or not getting it in the first place. But based on statistics, non-literal Christianity isn’t working as a solution. If people can’t accept conservative Christianity, they don’t seem to accept Christianity at all.

Even in Europe, Christianity seems to be nearly disappearing, so I'm not sure you're much better off. Yes, liberal (US sense) Christianity allows people to accept scientific and historical evidence, but not many people seem to be interested in Christianity of that kind.

 

[Blue Wren]

I cannot quote, for some reason. Hedrick, I only know, what the OP person posted, in this thread, that was what my post was responding to, nothing more. Christianity, it is declining, all over the US & in Europe, yes, you are correct. From what I've read, on this forum, creationism, and other perceived conflict between science & religion, is it contributing to the problem. It's not the only problem, of course, no, but it is a problem.
Ignorance, again, not the only problem, but it is a problem, yes. I've read creationist biology textbooks, used in home schooling, and sites, such as creation and icr, that prey, on the ignorance of people, and manipulate them about evolution. That creates conflict. It is more of a problem, most definitely, with conservative Christians, than liberal Christians

 

[faceofbear]

In my experience, the reason why I, and others, I believe, have trouble converting to Christianity is with science literacy. Young Earth Creationism, and Fundamentalism tries to completely re-write science to fit their ideas into science, rather than letting science shape their ideas. I can see how this could potentially be conflicting with religious, but I really do not doubt evolution anymore than I doubt gravity.

When I was younger, and first truly began delving into the theory of evolution, I was a conservative Christian. I fell away because everything fundamentalists were telling me about evolution was either an outright lie based on fear, or a misunderstanding of the theory altogether. It worried me that prominent conservative leaders were trying to argue science with science, when they truly had no understanding of the bare minimum of it.

This lead me to consider atheism. However, when honestly thinking about what they were telling me, I realized their tactics were very similar to what fundamentalists in Christianity use. They made it seem like evolution and God were incompatible. But, when I stepped back and looked at the argument, I saw no reason why evolution destroys God. If anything it would be the Big Bang, or String theory, but I began to reason that either God exists, the Universe is eternal, or there are an infinite amount of finite causes which resulted in our universe. All of which are incredibly irrational.

I began wondering, not why does the Universe exist, but why does anything exist? The whole concept seems completely ludicrous, and I have no definite answer. So to me, when people say that believing in God is intellectual suicide, etc. I truly disagree. Believing in existence is intellectual suicide, and yet here we are. We can, of course, understand existence as a series of events, and explain it naturally, but the philosophical question still remains, and it's one that, to my mind, will always exist.

And so I became what I would call a weak-deist. Largely because intuitively I believed in God, and no president evidence suggested to me that a god doesn't exist. Rather, it seemed evident to me that God would be outside of these workings. While I realize this opens up questions from atheists and the like of, "Who created God?" I don't really know if this is a logical question, and even if it is, it does not mean God doesn't exist just because God may need a creator. Yet, again, this leads me to the previous paragraph on existence. It's all really just as illogical as anything else and comes to some measure of faith.

Perhaps it was my indoctrination as a kid, but I still believe in the God of the Bible. I could forget about him, but never fully shake off the idea of him entirely. No matter what I did.

And, here I am.

 

[Progguy]

check out BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

 

[seashale76]

Our scriptures do not touch on the how of creation, because that wasn't the point of them. It's silly to read science into something that was never meant to convey such things. The purpose of the scriptures is to reveal God's purpose for man via the person of Christ. Evolution- or a vehement denial of the lack thereof- simply isn't found in the scriptures AT ALL. The only thing the scriptures tell us is that God is responsible for creation. The details are actually so unimportant in the bigger picture as to not even warrant a mention. The Old Testament points to Christ with types and anti-types of Christ. The scriptures aren't scientific documents, and I honestly don't see how science can be applied to them. Genesis is based on oral tradition and has a completely different focus than what science would even be looking at. Not everything is meant to be taken literally (especially in the way many seem to) and Genesis is meant to be a spiritual description of events that took place before time even existed. I'll stick with the church fathers and what they have to say over the evolution vs. YEC debate that attempts to read things into the scriptures that aren't there.