Theistic Evolution Being Compatible With Christianity

[Rex Lex]

It's like you didn't read anything I said. The people of the time knew Genesis 1 was not literal. Genesis 1 was written approximately 500 BC. So I am talking about 500 BC, not Calvin, Luther, etc. By the time you get to Calvin, Luther, etc., people had forgotten the Enuma Elish and were no longer reading Genesis 1 the way it was intended. They had mislead themselves.

Previously, Christians had not read Genesis 1 litearlly. In 400 AD Augustine did not advocate a literal 6 day creation.

In Calvin's Commentaries on Genesis, he also doesn't take a literal Genesis 1.

Francis Bacon warned in the early 1600s against taking Genesis literally:
"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (1620)

So Bacon already recognized that creationism was heresy almost 400 years ago.

By 1800 Christians were realizing that the earth was very old. By 1831 a world-wide flood was falsified and people realized that they could not interpret Genesis 1 the way they had been in the recent past. Thus the first quote in my signature.

By the late 1800s, Christians had accepted evolution.
"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.



Actually you have it backwards. Exodus came first. Exodus and the 10 Commandments happened before the Genesis creation stories were written. Originally, there was no Exodus 20:11. The corresponding 10 Commandments in Deuteronomy don't have it.

Genesis 1 was constructed for a 6 day creation and a day of rest to provide a (unnecessary) justification for the sabbath. Then the redactor who put the Torah together inserted Exodus 20:11. You can see this is in the Hebrew because 20:11 interupts the rhythm of the text (remember, the Pentateuch is meant to be sung).

Now, Genesis 2:4 has the creation of the heavens and the earth that took 4 days takes place in a single day. This is very explicit in the Hebrew. So you have 2 creation stories and they contradict. That's a neon sign that they were never meant to be taken literally.

Since you didn't answer the question the first time, let me put it to you again: in scripture, what is the "Word"?

You aren't telling the truth. I can answer each and every one of your points but you are so far out in left field that anyone who knows their Bible well enough can see that without me having to type out a long refutation.

Bye.

 

[Mallon]

You aren't telling the truth. I can answer each and every one of your points but you are so far out in left field that anyone who knows their Bible well enough can see that without me having to type out a long refutation.

Bye.

I'd still like to see it.

 

[theFijian]

You aren't telling the truth. I can answer each and every one of your points but you are so far out in left field that anyone who knows their Bible well enough can see that without me having to type out a long refutation.

Bye.

Shame, maybe one day you'll see that a little humility goes a long way

 

[Rex Lex]

Shame, maybe one day you'll see that a little humility goes a long way

So I can be 'humble' just like you are?

 

[theFijian]

So I can be 'humble' just like you are?

Humility isn't thinking less of yourself, it's thinking of yourself less

 

[crawfish]

You are deceived. The Christian world did not believe in evolution or the so-called long ages of time before the 1800's. Calvin, Luther, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, etc. all believed in the six day creation as taught in Genesis and Exodus.

Luther also believed that the sun revolved around the earth based on scripture.

 

[Rex Lex]

Luther also believed that the sun revolved around the earth based on scripture.

So? We are all wrong about certain things. He wasn't wrong about the 6 day creation.

 

[granpa]

Job 14 (New International Version, ©2010)

18 “But as a mountain erodes and crumbles
and as a rock is moved from its place,

Job 15 (New International Version, ©2010)

7 “Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills?

 

[lucaspa]

You aren't telling the truth.

That's a nasty allegation, particularly when you don't answer anything.

Most of the post had to do with Christian history and how the Bible was interpreted. The quotes are genuine and I gave citations. They are the truth. Not what you want to hear, but the truth nonetheless.

I can answer each and every one of your points but you are so far out in left field that anyone who knows their Bible well enough can see that without me having to type out a long refutation..

The part about Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11? No, it's the truth. Again, not what you want to hear, but apparently something you can't answer.

Bye.

 

[lucaspa]

We are all wrong about certain things. He wasn't wrong about the 6 day creation.

I notice you didn't back this up with any evidence. Yes, Luther was wrong about it. The fossil record shows creation happening over vastly longer time than 6 days.

Didn't you read Bacon? A 6 day creation is part of a heretical religion. But you don't seem to care about that.

 

[Rex Lex]

I notice you didn't back this up with any evidence. Yes, Luther was wrong about it. The fossil record shows creation happening over vastly longer time than 6 days.

No, he wasn't, you are. And very badly so.

It is but shallow thinking to not see the obvious. Why did the dove Noah sent forth from the ark return to the ark?

"But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him in the ark, for the waters were on the FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH:" Genesis 8:9. Later, the little dove DID find the land for the waters had gone down.

Had it been a local flood then the dove would have found land without to much problem. The language is very clear. You just don't believe what Moses taught about it.

Didn't you read Bacon? A 6 day creation is part of a heretical religion. But you don't seem to care about that.

I don't care what Bacon said. I care what God's inspired word says so very clearly.

 

[theFijian]

I thought you said you were going yet you are still here. If you're sticking around here's a question if you have time, do you think that a young earth and special creation can be proved (a) purely scientifically , (b) the Bible is the only evidence we need, or (c) some combination.

 

[Assyrian]

No, he wasn't, you are. And very badly so.

It is but shallow thinking to not see the obvious. Why did the dove Noah sent forth from the ark return to the ark?

"But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him in the ark, for the waters were on the FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH:" Genesis 8:9. Later, the little dove DID find the land for the waters had gone down.

Had it been a local flood then the dove would have found land without to much problem. The language is very clear. You just don't believe what Moses taught about it.

Gen 8:5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made
7 and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.
8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground.
9 But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.
I think you have to ask yourself two questions her, how far the dove flew in search of a place to rest if the tops of the hills were visible in the distance. And again if the whole planet wasn't covered by water, as evidenced by the hill tops visible, what it means by 'the face of the whole earth' which was covered with water.

The Good News translation fits a lot better.
Genesis 8:9 GNT but since the water still covered all the land, the dove did not find a place to light. It isn't talking about the whole planet being covered by water but just that region or land.

 

[Mallon]

I don't think the story of Noah's dove proves it was a global flood, either. It isn't as though the dove flew to the other side of the world to find an olive branch.

 

[lucaspa]

It is but shallow thinking to not see the obvious.

Which is why I keep wondering why you keep ignoring God's Creation,

Why did the dove Noah sent forth from the ark return to the ark?

According to the story, the dove was a test to see if the waters had receded. DUH! The story has Noah building the Ark such that he can't see out. Of course, Noah could always have waited until the Ark grounded. There was no need to send a dove, was there?

Had it been a local flood then the dove would have found land without to much problem.

A flooded Tigris-Euphrates Valley is going to have water covering land farther than a dove can fly. I doubt a dove can fly more than 5 or 10 miles before it has to rest. Just how big a range do you think a dove has?

Even if you double my estimate of a dove's range, the Tigris-Ephrates Valley is well over 100 miles wide, which is still much father than the dove can fly.

I don't care what Bacon said. I care what God's inspired word says so very clearly.

Yeah, you care about "God's inspired word". I would wish you would care about God half as much. BTW, I notice you stopped capitalizing "word" as "Word". Find out what the real "Word" is?

 

[sdmsanjose]

Papias believes:

“One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change”.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables 2000 years ago, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

Here we have a person (Papias) that believes that we went from “the ape to human gradual change”. He also believes that Jesus is God and is the atonement for the sin of the fall. Seems to me Papias is a person who has a scientific point of view of evolution and has Christian spiritual faith.

Since I am not into science for truths of the Bible I have never considered that mankind evolved from apes. Not being into science for that purpose, I am not able to prove that the TE position is wrong nor is it necessary to be proven right or wrong IMO

Why? Because salvation does not depend on our position on evolution. Our salvation depends on faith and faith is very different from scientific theory or facts. I do enjoy reading and learning about science as I see science as a very important part of our world but science is the evidence of things seen through the criteria of the scientific methods. Christian faith is:

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Trying to use the Bible to disprove science is as futile as trying to use science to disprove faith.

Quote by YinandYang
However, I have come to an understanding that there does seem to be adequate explanation as to how both Theistic Evolution and Christianity can be compatible and true.

Well if you are looking for an “adequate explanation as to how both Theistic Evolution and Christianity can be compatible and true”, I will not be much help. I think that you will never get those two camps to always agree. I think this is a case where the saying “Can’t we all just get along” is not going to work.

I think the most important thing that Yinandyang said was

by YinandYang
Whether or not one supports Creationism does not affect one's salvation in the least, whether from a Catholic or Protestant perspective. Thus, if Creationism is actually correct, God will simply correct us, when we die and go to heaven, by explaining why Theistic Evolution is incorrect. However, we will not be sent to hell due to our own individual support of either Creationism or Theistic Evolution.

You are right Yinandyang, salvation does not require passing a science test or reconciling TE and creationism.