Theistic Evolution?

[Gozreht]

Assyrian,
There are so many things wrong you did to and with my posts, I don't know where to begin.

All part of the natural world God created.

Actually the bible doesn't say there was no rain until the flood. The flood account is the first mention of rain, but that doesn't mean it was the first rain ever. Genesis describe the red adamah soil Adam was formed from and to which he returned to till after Eden as being cursed, not the whole earth being cursed. And the curse was that it would produce abundant plant life for Adam, just not the kinds of plants adam wanted to grow, but thorns and thistles. There is no hint of plants suddenly becoming mortal after the fall, let alone animals. death being the result of the fall

Let's start with this one. Genesis says that God had not caused rain upon the earth yet. If the earth was millions and billions years old, then how could plant life live without the rain? Because there was a mist that came up from the ground and watered the entire surface. Not my words, not my interpretation. And based on what you say, I would almost bet you think it was a local flood too.

Now, I don't have to argue for a no-rain pre-flood world. I can live with that. But you side stepped the point in that part of the post. Trees and the earth dying could be part of God's plan, but being part of a curse isn't? Why would allow them to die on their own of they did not do anything wrong if He wouldn't allow then to die due to man's sin, who was placed in charge of the earth. And another point that you missed was that I was just trying to show you that things were cursed due to the fall, not just man.

That is what you are reading into the text. There certainly wasn't spiritual death because man hadn't sinned yet, but you don't know from the text that there wasn't physical death, because the text simply doesn't say that.

And you are doing the same but in the opposite direction.

I was simply showing you another interpretation that is consistent with the text. You thought the flood somehow showed the animals were cursed by Adam's sin, but it simply does not follow.

Interpretation based on what you think or others many think, again the same thing you think I am doing. There is nothing I am saying that contradicts the Bible. I am also not adding anymore than any evolutionist would, plus I am keeping all things starting with God. But, yes, I am using my feelings about what I get out of scripture. No scritpure contradicts what I am saying.

Yet the flood account used the same Hebrew construction. If the Hebrew doesn't support your interpretation, it probably means you are reading things into the English translation. If you want translations that donj't go down the road of 'more' or 'above' check out
Gen 3:14 CEV "Because of what you have done, you will be the only animal to suffer this curse... "
GNB "You will be punished for this; you alone of all the animals must bear this curse.... "
NLT "Because you have done this, you will be punished. You are singled out from all the domestic and wild animals of the whole earth to be cursed."

I am taking the NLT is not the New Living Translation, because that is not what is says. The GNB calls the serpent a snake, which is "reading to much into it". No one knows what the serpent actuaually was. So the ones you listed are not the most reliable. Whatever.

I personally use the Complete Jewish Bible which takes the original language (Hebrew, not Greek) into account and translate it into how Messianic Jews would understand it. It's not perfect but I would trust it more than what you have proposed.

Oh well. I will leave you with that. I am going to try and not respond to these posts. I have too many things to do. Lord help me...

 

[dies-l]

Not criticizing, just adding to this. The earth stopped because the sun does not revolve around us. That's the only thing it could mean. But from our perspective the sun stayed at the same angle it was at for an hour. Now, the moon stopped and that would cause the tides to roll over the coasts!

Interesting that anyone would abandon the literal interpretation in this verse in order to preserve unyielding literalism in another.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian,
There are so many things wrong you did to and with my posts, I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with this one. Genesis says that God had not caused rain upon the earth yet. If the earth was millions and billions years old, then how could plant life live without the rain? Because there was a mist that came up from the ground and watered the entire surface. Not my words, not my interpretation. And based on what you say, I would almost bet you think it was a local flood too.

Sure, the text fits a local flood too, you find the same language used to describe the plague of locusts that covered the whole land (erets) as we do to describe the flood. However that is another subject I am not sure if you want to get into it right now.

The flood does however illustrate one of the answers to you question about rain. This is the fact that erets can be translated as the earth or as a particular land and one of the interpretation of Genesis 2 is that it is talking about a particular region of wilderness where there were no plants because it wasn't rain there. It is not my interpertation, I see the story as a parable, and if it isn't a description of literal history then the whole problem disappears. Actually one of the reasons I see it as a parable or allegory is because the two creation stories simply don't fit together, they present different orders of creation, and if we look at the creation of plants, Genesis 2 presents a very different picture to Genesis 1. If you don't take the days in Genesis 1 literally, then can you really say the literal interpretation of Genesis 2 is an issue for evolution? But lets take them as six literal days. Go back to Genesis 1, the earth is covered with deep water and God command the waters to be gathered together and dry land to appear, which God calls earth (erets). So you have land emerging from deep the water pouring off it in torrents This is all on day three, the land sits there bare and barren. Why are there no plants? Was it because there had been no rain? No, the land was completely underwater that very morning, even if it had rained there was no time for plants to grow naturally and there were no plants to grow because plants and seeds had still to be created. A lack of rain is not the reason for the land being bare in Genesis 1. It is not that the bible contradicts itself, it is just that the creation stories were not meant to be read as literal history.

Now, I don't have to argue for a no-rain pre-flood world. I can live with that. But you side stepped the point in that part of the post. Trees and the earth dying could be part of God's plan, but being part of a curse isn't?

It is not that it couldn't be but that the bible doesn't say it was. Don't forget, NOTurTypical was trying to argue against evolution by saying a literal reading of the bible means there was no death before the fall. But as we have seen, the bible doesn't say anything about animal death being the result of the fall or that no animals died before Adam sinned. It is one thing to interpret the bible literally and add in all these extras to help you interpretation fit together, it is another to say that the literal interpretation contradicts evolution because of the bits you have added in.

Why would allow them to die on their own of they did not do anything wrong if He wouldn't allow then to die due to man's sin, who was placed in charge of the earth. And another point that you missed was that I was just trying to show you that things were cursed due to the fall, not just man.

But you haven't shown that trees were cursed due to the fall, or animals for that matter (apart from a snake that wasn't really a snake). It's not that trees don't get ever cursed,


it is that the bible never says trees and animals were cursed by the fall and the passages used to claim they were, like Romans 5:12, simply do not fit.

And you are doing the same but in the opposite direction.

No not really. I don't claim the bible teaches evolution and I distinguish between what the text says, and my interpretation of the text and theology. I recognise that there are many different way to read Genesis and lean towards the ones that that don't contradict what we know of reality and make most sense of the text.

Interpretation based on what you think or others many think, again the same thing you think I am doing. There is nothing I am saying that contradicts the Bible. I am also not adding anymore than any evolutionist would, plus I am keeping all things starting with God. But, yes, I am using my feelings about what I get out of scripture. No scritpure contradicts what I am saying.

So if there are other interpretations of the text that do not contradict what we know from science, why choose one that does? Everyone thought before copernicus that the bible said the sun went round the earth, when science showed this was wrong, the church had to find new ways to read those passages. But now we have other ways to read the geocentric passages like Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, is there any reason to go back to the old interpretation? Even if you say you are just starting with God and the bible, even if you say no scripture contradicts the geocentric interpretation, it is still no basis to be a geocentrist when there are other ways to read the passages that do not contradict what we know from reality.

I am taking the NLT is not the New Living Translation, because that is not what is says.

You are probably looking at the 2007 version which is very different from the 1996 NLT.

The GNB calls the serpent a snake, which is "reading to much into it". No one knows what the serpent actuaually was. So the ones you listed are not the most reliable. Whatever.

Serpent is simply an older English word for snake, which is what the Hebrew means.

I personally use the Complete Jewish Bible which takes the original language (Hebrew, not Greek) into account and translate it into how Messianic Jews would understand it. It's not perfect but I would trust it more than what you have proposed.

Here is what Keil & Delitzsch says about the Hebrew construction used.

The sentence follows the examination, and is pronounced first of all upon the serpent as the tempter: “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed before all cattle, and before every beast of the field.” מן, literally out of the beasts, separate from them (Deu_14:2; Jdg_5:24), is not a comparative signifying more than, nor does it mean by; for the curse did not proceed from the beasts, but from God, and was not pronounced upon all the beasts, but upon the serpent alone.
​

Oh well. I will leave you with that. I am going to try and not respond to these posts. I have too many things to do. Lord help me...

Cheers, it has been good talking to you.

 

[NOTurTypical]

"Sure, the text fits a local flood too.."


A local flood? Really? If that were the case why did God have Noah spend 100+ years building an ark? Why didn't God tell Noah to MOVE?

 

[kmdickinson]

"Sure, the text fits a local flood too.."


A local flood? Really? If that were the case why did God have Noah spend 100+ years building an ark? Why didn't God tell Noah to MOVE?

Let's see, walking at a very leisurely rate of 1 mph, 8 hours a day, 6 days a week for 120 years (120 years assuming God told Noah immediately upon declaring mans days on the earth are numbered to 120 years) he could have walked 29,000 miles and some change.

 

[Assyrian]

"Sure, the text fits a local flood too.."
A local flood? Really? If that were the case why did God have Noah spend 100+ years building an ark?

He didn't.

Why didn't God tell Noah to MOVE?

Why did God tell Ezekiel to lie on his side 420 day eating barley bread cooked over a dung fire? Couldn't he just walk around Jerusalem and tell people? God doesn't necessarily have to provide an explanation for the way he tells his people to do things, and just because you think you understand the reason, it doesn't mean your explanation was God's reason for it, or that if your explanation no longer works then then is no other possible reason. What we do know is that Noah was called to preach righteousness to the people around him, which he would not have been able to do if he simply left. We also know that the ark provides a beautiful allegory of redemption and baptism which the NT would not have been able to use if Noah had left on foot. Besides transportation by boat was a lot easier than walking, especially if you have to being food and water for all the animals. Herding cats and spiders isn't very easy either.

 

[kmdickinson]

He didn't.


Why did God tell Ezekiel to lie on his side 420 day eating barley bread cooked over a dung fire? Couldn't he just walk around Jerusalem and tell people? God doesn't necessarily have to provide an explanation for the way he tells his people to do things, and just because you think you understand the reason, it doesn't mean your explanation was God's reason for it, or that if your explanation no longer works then then is no other possible reason. What we do know is that Noah was called to preach righteousness to the people around him, which he would not have been able to do if he simply left. We also know that the ark provides a beautiful allegory of redemption and baptism which the NT would not have been able to use if Noah had left on foot. Besides transportation by boat was a lot easier than walking, especially if you have to being food and water for all the animals. Herding cats and spiders isn't very easy either.

One of the points of this debate is that Noah wouldn't have even had to build and ark and take animals anywhere if it were a localized flood. Noah could have just preached righteousness and then walked out of the area. There would have been enough animals outside of the flood zone.

Look how God spared Lot. Sodom and Gamorrah were localized judgements from God. Did He just have Lot build a bomb shelter for he and his family? No. There was a safe place that Lot could get to. In the flood, there was no safe place on earth for Noah to retreat to.

 

[Assyrian]

One of the points of this debate is that Noah wouldn't have even had to build and ark and take animals anywhere if it were a localized flood. Noah could have just preached righteousness and then walked out of the area. There would have been enough animals outside of the flood zone.

Look how God spared Lot. Sodom and Gamorrah were localized judgements from God. Did He just have Lot build a bomb shelter for he and his family? No. There was a safe place that Lot could get to. In the flood, there was no safe place on earth for Noah to retreat to.

The thing is, it really isn't that much of a point in the debate. It is how you understand God's reasons for the ark, therefore it must be true and any understanding of the flood that doesn't fit your understanding of God's reasons must be wrong. God could have told Moses to walk away, he could have to Elijah to walk to a land where there wasn't a drought instead of waiting by a brook being fed by ravens. God doesn't always chose the method that make most sense to us and he doesn't always explain himself, just ask Joshua, Gideon or David about the battle strategies God gave them. There are problems with your mass migration idea as I have pointed out. Don't forget all the unique species in the region, or the domesticated breeds that would be lost forever, and maybe God just cared for all the different lineages of animals in the area. But it doesn't really matter. The ark was the method God chose, whether the flood was global or local and thinking you understand God's reason for the ark is not the same as God telling us the real reasons he chose it.

 

[NOTurTypical]

He didn't.


Why did God tell Ezekiel to lie on his side 420 day eating barley bread cooked over a dung fire? Couldn't he just walk around Jerusalem and tell people? God doesn't necessarily have to provide an explanation for the way he tells his people to do things, and just because you think you understand the reason, it doesn't mean your explanation was God's reason for it, or that if your explanation no longer works then then is no other possible reason.

The Bible declares the flood-waters covered all the mountains. Was that allegory also? Oh darn. "mountains" is a metaphor for "nations" in the scripture. No luck there with the allegory trump card.

 

[dies-l]

The Bible declares the flood-waters covered all the mountains. Was that allegory also? Oh darn. "mountains" is a metaphor for "nations" in the scripture. No luck there with the allegory trump card.

Do you understand that "allegory" and "metaphor" are not the same thing?

 

[Assyrian]

The Bible declares the flood-waters covered all the mountains. Was that allegory also? Oh darn. "mountains" is a metaphor for "nations" in the scripture. No luck there with the allegory trump card.

I wasn't playing it As I mentioned in my post to Gozreht, the local flood interpretation understand the word erets to mean a particular region of land, not the whole earth. So the events described there refer to what when on in that region. Your mountains, or hills as it can also be translated, are simple all the high hills in the land.

 

[Gozreht]

Assyrian,

I won't copy all of whay you wrote. I can handle everything you said. I disagree with it but I can see your viewpoint. But one thing I will always disagree and can not see because I see other evidence is that science has not "proven" the beginnings of the universe. They have presented a theory (set of theories) with a set of flawed data, which I have already presented back on page 4. I am not disregarding science. I am not saying we shouldn't use it. But evolution is a flawed thought process that when taken as a whole becomes a lie that the bible says will happen. If you ask me, remember this one is my opinion, evolution is a masked evil. It takes most people for a ride away from who God is. MOST evolutionists, including its founders, believe God is not part of the equation. Therefore becomes a facade, close to even gnosticism by Christians, the same treatment Paul was getting by the Galatians. Now bits and pieces of evolution, such as adaptation, environmental changes, may be right on, but not natural selection, that is border line deism, and I hope none of believe that God created the universe and left it alone.

And last thing to you on this subject, just because the Bible does not say it specifically, does not mean that it didn't happen that way. That is like an atheist asking for DNA to prove God exists. I know you will not agree with any of that. I am fine with that conclusion.

It was nice discussing this with you as well. I hope we can have open discussions in the futre.

Take care, my friend, my brother.

 

[Deaver]

Hi, I'm doing a bit of personal research and was wondering if any non denom people support theistic evolution. If so, do you have any bible verses to back up your claims, if not, then what verses do you have to back up those claims also?

Thanks and God Bless!

I also fall into the “if not” category. I believe, unfortunately, that one of the most recent trends in modern Christianity is to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theories. It is sad that many Bible teachers and apologists have caved in to the evolutionists and have come to believe that adhering to a literal interpretation of Genesis is somehow detrimental to the credibility of Christians.

As Christians we should hold to the truth that he Bible is compatible with real science; it has ever been disproved by true science.

The Bible is God’s living Word, given to us by the Creator of the universe, and His description of how He created that universe is not compatible with the theory of evolution, even a “theistic” understanding of evolution. If you look through the Bible you will find many solid points of contrast between the Bible and evolution. Here are just a couple (not to be confrontational – only to show my point of non-compatibility).

The Mosaic narrative reveals that living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25). According to the evolutionist, all living organisms derive from a common primitive source.

The Scriptures declare that man was ordained to exercise dominion over “every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28), but evolution alleges that billions of creatures already had lived and become extinct millions of years before man set foot upon the planet, hence, before he had opportunity to have dominion over them.

The Bible announces that God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26; 1 Corinthians 11:7). Evolutionists suggest that man, because of his fears of natural forces that he could not understand, created God in his own image.

 

[Assyrian]

I also fall into the “if not” category. I believe, unfortunately, that one of the most recent trends in modern Christianity is to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theories. It is sad that many Bible teachers and apologists have caved in to the evolutionists and have come to believe that adhering to a literal interpretation of Genesis is somehow detrimental to the credibility of Christians.

As Christians we should hold to the truth that he Bible is compatible with real science; it has ever been disproved by true science.

Although if you look back in the history of the church, true science can correct a misinterpretation of scripture. Before Copernicus showed the earth goes round the sun, everyone though the bible said the sun went round the earth and literally stopped moving when Joshua commanded it to. Today we all know the sun wasn't moving in the first place and we have found better ways to interpret the miracle and other passages that speak of the sun going round the earth.

The Bible is God’s living Word, given to us by the Creator of the universe, and His description of how He created that universe is not compatible with the theory of evolution, even a “theistic” understanding of evolution. If you look through the Bible you will find many solid points of contrast between the Bible and evolution. Here are just a couple (not to be confrontational – only to show my point of non-compatibility).

Not sure these are the issues you think they are

The Mosaic narrative reveals that living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25). According to the evolutionist, all living organisms derive from a common primitive source.

The command was for the earth to produce different kinds of animal, which it has done whether the evolved from a common ancestor or each popped into existence individually, the text does not actually say the animals were to reproduce after its own kind. This is a phrase that has been going around Creationist circles for some time, but it is not in the bible.

The Scriptures declare that man was ordained to exercise dominion over “every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28), but evolution alleges that billions of creatures already had lived and become extinct millions of years before man set foot upon the planet, hence, before he had opportunity to have dominion over them.

God also commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but how could they fill the earth over during the six days before they were created? The thing is, the command to have dominion over everything that moves is just that, a command, it is what they were to do in the future.

However if you want to think of it that way, man has been excercising some retrospective dominion, even over species long extinct, man gave names to all the animals, to the trilobites and ammonites, the sauropods and the hadrosaurs, the plesoisaurs and velociraptors

The Bible announces that God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26; 1 Corinthians 11:7). Evolutionists suggest that man, because of his fears of natural forces that he could not understand, created God in his own image.

I think you will find it is atheists who make that claim, not Christians who are theistic evolutionists. That is what the theist part is about, we believe in God. We believe he is the creator of everything and that h made man in his own image. We just don't have problem with evolution being the way God did it.