Theistic Evolution

[mathetes123]

You aren't answering my question. If you think creation was finished before Adam and Eve sinned, and there was no death until they sinned, then how do you interpret Psalm 104:29-30? Psalm 104:29-30 says that God was has created animals to renew the earth after death was already in the world.

We are new creations in Christ when we believe and the holy spirit Indwells us. What makes you think this verse refers to the original creation?

Do you believe Adam and Eve were historical figures or is the creation account In genesis merely an allegory? On what do you base your answer?

 

[juvenissun]

You aren't answering my question. If you think creation was finished before Adam and Eve sinned, and there was no death until they sinned, then how do you interpret Psalm 104:29-30? Psalm 104:29-30 says that God has created animals to renew the earth after death was already in the world.

I think Ps104:30 refers to human, not all life forms. Right?

I had an extensive discussion on this issue in the Origin Theology forum. My conclusion is that every new-born human is NOT a new creation (scientifically, it is not a problem). It is an incarnation of existed life, possibly, an angel.

 

[mathetes123]

I think Ps104:30 refers to human, not all life forms. Right?

I had an extensive discussion on this issue in the Origin Theology forum. My conclusion is that every new-born human is NOT a new creation (scientifically, it is not a problem). It is an incarnation of existed life, possibly, an angel.

What do you base this belief on? How has god revealed this to you?

 

[Aggie]

I think all world religions shared some common core theme. This includes individual religious ideas. So whatever you say in a serious manner, I take it seriously, and my argument will also be serious.

So, if a new star is a new creation, than what is NOT a new creation? Would your idea makes EVERYTHING a new creation?

I guess you could view it that way, since everything that exists is part of the universe's history, which was created by God.

One area where this principle is a little more complex is for something that was created by a human, such as a painting or a piece of music. Things like that are part of the universe's history, so they can be considered part of God's creation in that sense, but they also are created by a human in a more direct sense. The human brains that produced them can have their origins traced back to physical laws for which God is responsible, though, and even a completely abstract painting is still using colors that God created as part of the universe. Humans can imitate God's creative process, but I don't think it's possible for us to create something completely independently of him.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I'm a good person to ask in order to examine how all religions have certain themes in common. I was a Christian for nineteen years, so in many ways what I believe now is still influenced by Christian ideas.

I think Ps104:30 refers to human, not all life forms. Right?

We are new creations in Christ when we believe and the holy spirit Indwells us. What makes you think this verse refers to the original creation?

If you read the context of these verses, it's obvious they're talking about animals, not people. Here's the entire context:

24 How many are your works, O Lord!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
27 These all look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the earth.

So, these verses obviously aren't referring to a person becoming a new creation when he or she is saved, unless animals (including sea creatures) can be saved.

 

[juvenissun]

I guess you could view it that way, since everything that exists is part of the universe's history, which was created by God.

One area where this principle is a little more complex is for something that was created by a human, such as a painting or a piece of music. Things like that are part of the universe's history, so they can be considered part of God's creation in that sense, but they also are created by a human in a more direct sense. The human brains that produced them can have their origins traced back to physical laws for which God is responsible, though, and even a completely abstract painting is still using colors that God created as part of the universe. Humans can imitate God's creative process, but I don't think it's possible for us to create something completely independently of him.

So, if a new tree, or a new grass, popped out from the soil, it is a new creation by god. Is that right?

 

[juvenissun]

What do you base this belief on? How has god revealed this to you?

I agree with what Aggie said. Ps 104 is a general praise of God's power. It does not particularly refer to the creation of animal or human.

And I think vs 30 is a poetic description on the Genesis 1 creation. It further echoes that the creation was done by the Spirit of God, which, in fact, is the Son Jesus, whom David has no way to know Him.

I would answer your question if we have an appropriate threads.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

evolutionary creation is a take on fallen nature. it is not just life, but life and death, disease and suffering. ir is perhaps the tree of knowledge of good an evil itself. pure evolutionism a truer fall. the good of lifes truth remains bur the bad of error and maladaptation occurr. perhaps there is a dynamic bringing some souls back to God.. the truth life and way! probably better to say spirit and grace though. in christ error is nor randomised and purposeless but result of original sin to pruned away.hy believe. well maybe there i an objective ontological argument from fuller life in Christ as greater being and more substamtoal spiritual truth. So the being of a believer can relate one to the truth of life s nature more strongly. vitum in christi ergo vetitum evangelum est. the more perfect life in christ indicates a fuller truth of its cause and reality.

 

[NailsII]

Something I haven't come across yet is a discussion on Theistic Evolution. Does anyone here have thoughts on this?

Yes, if god has guided evolution then he must have taken his eye off the ball a few times.

 

[Shemjaza]

In what way is Jesus an example?

Well him coming to Earth to perform miracles and die saving all of mankind seems like a pretty significant change to the creation.

The deist god mindlessly nudging along stars and chemistry seems trivial compared to re-writing the internal behavior of all the most significant creatures in the universe.

 

[Aggie]

So, if a new tree, or a new grass, popped out from the soil, it is a new creation by god. Is that right?

It's part of God's creation, but I wouldn't really call it a "new" creation. God's creation is the entire universe, and everything in it. You can single out specific objects in the universe and ask if God created them, and the answer will probably always be yes, but I don't think there are any individual objects have a specific status in this respect.

And I think vs 30 is a poetic description on the Genesis 1 creation. It further echoes that the creation was done by the Spirit of God, which, in fact, is the Son Jesus, whom David has no way to know Him.

If you think Psalm 104:30 is referring to the original creation in Genesis 1, why does it say that God's creation "renewed" the earth? The Hebrew word used for "renew" in this verse is chadash, which specifically means restoring something to the way it was before. Also remember, the previous verse was describing when God chooses for animals to die. Why would God have needed to restore the earth to its former status during creation week?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What do you think: Evolutionary creation is the tree of knowledge of good and evil which we chose to eat from.... It is fallen nature.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Here is a place in the galaxy where new stars are being formed, according to physical processes at work in the natural world.

If this can happen, then why can not new species be formed, according to physical processes at work in the natural world - i.e evolution?

 

[mathetes123]

Well him coming to Earth to perform miracles and die saving all of mankind seems like a pretty significant change to the creation.

The deist god mindlessly nudging along stars and chemistry seems trivial compared to re-writing the internal behavior of all the most significant creatures in the universe.

What would be the purpose of Jesus coming to the earth to save the earth if God's creation was not in fact fallen, as scripture says, but is continually recreating and improving itself through evolution?

 

[HitchSlap]

So, what is the goal of your god?

Same as yours I 'spose... that Tebow wins every week. Duh!

 

[HitchSlap]

What would be the purpose of Jesus coming to the earth to save the earth if God's creation was not in fact fallen, as scripture says, but is continually recreating and improving itself through evolution?

Human sacrifice doesn't make sense on any level.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is a place in the galaxy where new stars are being formed, according to physical processes at work in the natural world.

If this can happen, then why can not new species be formed, according to physical processes at work in the natural world - i.e evolution?

A star will explode, if so, why won't a dog also explode?

 

[juvenissun]

It's part of God's creation, but I wouldn't really call it a "new" creation. God's creation is the entire universe, and everything in it. You can single out specific objects in the universe and ask if God created them, and the answer will probably always be yes, but I don't think there are any individual objects have a specific status in this respect.

So, your god is creating all the time, nearly every second or a fraction of a second, something is created. And he started to do this from the beginning to the forever.

If is OK, but it is not good and is not beautiful. Does your god have time to do anything else? If that is it, then he is not a god, but is a creating machine.

 

[juvenissun]

If you think Psalm 104:30 is referring to the original creation in Genesis 1, why does it say that God's creation "renewed" the earth? The Hebrew word used for "renew" in this verse is chadash, which specifically means restoring something to the way it was before. Also remember, the previous verse was describing when God chooses for animals to die. Why would God have needed to restore the earth to its former status during creation week?

I saw the question.

I don't know how to answer this question except providing some of my interpretations (reasonable interpretations).

Genesis 1 never really describes how was the earth formed. To me, the earth could be made anytime before the Day Five and during or after the Day Two.

And here, I have to put science into the interpretation. In the history of earth formation, destruction was as common and as frequent as construction and restoration. It is conceivable that before the creation of human (even during the time when Adam was in the Garden), animals have suffered many times of disastrous situation (in Day Five and Day Six). That is why we see those fossil records.

Without having a better answer to the question, this is my version of answer. It makes sense even I have to pull science into it. And I don't see anything wrong by making this kind of interpretation.

One thing I want to argue strongly is that God does NOT create again (or any more) after the Day Six.

 

[Aggie]

So, your god is creating all the time, nearly every second or a fraction of a second, something is created. And he started to do this from the beginning to the forever.

I don't think you understood what I was saying about this. When I say that God created the universe's entire history, this is something he only needed to do once, because according to General Relativity the universe's entire history was set in place from the moment the universe was created. The letter I linked to at Christianity Today also explains this. It's similar to how every event I experience while reading a book was created by the book's author, but the author doesn't need to be there creating each individual event every time I read the book.

Genesis 1 never really describes how was the earth formed. To me, the earth could be made anytime before the Day Five and during or after the Day Two.

And here, I have to put science into the interpretation. In the history of earth formation, destruction was as common and as frequent as construction and restoration. It is conceivable that before the creation of human (even during the time when Adam was in the Garden), animals have suffered many times of disastrous situation (in Day Five and Day Six). That is why we see those fossil records.

I don't think your interpretation is possible. This is what Genesis 1: 2-5 says:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

If you read this chapter literally (as I know you do), according to Genesis 1:2 the earth already existed on day 1, although it was formless and empty at first.

Incidentally, if you want to know how I interpreted this verse when I was a Christian, I thought this verse suggested that the days in Genesis 1 weren't literal 24-hours day. If you can accept that God created the world over a longer period than a literal week, then it's less difficult to imagine that animals were dying during this period, and that he created new animals to renew the earth afterwards.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What would be the purpose of Jesus coming to the earth to save the earth if God's creation was not in fact fallen, as scripture says, but is continually recreating and improving itself through evolution?

This is a major category error. It seems you're trying to apply a scientific concept to a theological question. You might as well attempt to change a plug with a C# compiler, or navigate through the Amazon rain forest guided by musical notation.