Theistic evolution?

[KWCrazy]

In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.

Man cannot live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. To what was He referring if not the Scriptures? If the Scriptures are God's word, than how can they be untrue?

It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts.

Just so we are clear, there are NO valid scientific theories which can account for the origination of energy, the origin of life or the spontaneous auto-creation of anything. All 'scientific" theories require a suspension of the very physical laws they contend are immutable. So science teaches that the impossible happened naturally and Jesus taught that God, who is outside of the physical world, did the impossible supernaturally. From a scientific perspective, any supernatural event has to have a supernatural source.

If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it.

For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness.

The Bible doesn't teach cosmology.

After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.?

The Bible doesn't teach those things either. It was written to man's understanding. By the way. Sunrise and sunset will be used today by meteorologists around the world. Are they teaching geocentrism?

It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts.

Your position is incorrect. Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account.

Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman.

Did you ever actually READ the text? In Genesis 1, Eve is created after Adam. Genesis 2 begins by saying that the creation was completed. Where the first chapter deals with the creation of the universe, the second goes into more detail about the creation of man. It references things that had already happened. Animals were re-created and brought to Adam, the animals that God had already created were brought to Adam.

What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here.

There are two very different messages as well.

If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.

That's your opinion.

A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it.

I bet you can't cite the chapter and verse for this, because it's NOT in the Scriptures. It sounds like something perverted that Islam would make up. The Scriptures do not get into explicit details about sex, and nowhere is there any mention of a first wife. This is what we call false teaching. Look up what the Bible says about that.

In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.

I wonder how people who claim to be Biblical scholars can't figure out how to read and interpret the text. Perhaps what they are really studying is trying to find a way to distort the truth to accommodate their own false teaching.
[/quote]P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates.[/quote]
Why would He need to create the same way every time? There is a reason Adam came from dust. He will return to dust. There is a reason Eve came from Adam's rib bone. The two were made one flesh. Woman came from man. Sometimes Jesus healed with a touch, sometimes with a command, and sometimes with a mud paste. You can't point out one without acknowledging the other.

 

[KWCrazy]

When Christ speaks about Noah, it is not clear if he is speaking bout a local flood or a global flood. If the latter, then Christ is clearly wrong, period.

Oh, so you know more than the son of God, who was a witness to the events? God doesn't know anything because YOU assert there was no flood as the Bible recounts? I wasn't aware that you were a greater prophet than Christ.

OK, fine, but you are really holding with the inerrancy theory of Scripture, a human-made, possibly fallible theory about how God and the Bible may be related.

Nope. I believe what Christ said, not theologians.

You should come with an open mind.

It works better if you pray first and approach the Scriptures with the company of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let's see. From where I sit, the numerous contradictions alone in Scripture, in the Genesis account of creation and elsewhere, rule out inerrancy.

Having eyes they refuse to see, having ears they refuse to hear. The world is revealed and yet they close their minds to God's word, preferring instead their own.

I don't follow you when you speak of no mechanism to account for increasing complexity. Did it ever occur to you that God could work in and through evolution?

He could, but then He would have not told us He created man on the sixth day if He didn't think it was important to know. God didn't have to reveal ANYTHING about creation. Whether He took six days or six trillion years it's still an incredible miracle.

I like to think of God as the cosmic artist.

I don't think He likes that. I think He sees Himself as Lord.

I think God's primary aim is the creation of beauty.

Chapter and verse, please.

I see God as essential to the evolutionary process, as evolution is the rise of the genuinely novel and that requires a transcendental imagination containing all the creative potentials for the universe.

I don't see an evolutionary process. I see a temporary world that we will live in for a few decades while we decide whether to serve the Lord or reject His offer of salvation. I think when God is ready He will return and this vast universe will cease to exist forever. I believe it because that's what God said in His book. I never saw the verses about original progenitors and all living things coming from a single cell. Is that in the New Testament or old?

 

[Hoghead1]

You are missing my point here, KWCrazy. Again, my point is why should I buy your interpretation of Scripture. Let's take the example of Christ and Noah. You automatically assume Christ is talking about a worldwide flood. But who says you are correct? The story of Noah may have had to do only with flooding in a certain area. OK, suppose it does deal with the whole world, then perhaps Christ was speaking figuratively, not literally. Another matter to consider is how much of the sayings of Christ were spin-doctored.
You assume that Scripture is inerrant. OK, that is an assumption I am questioning. I think I did a pretty good job of shooting down your interpretation here, by pointing out key contradictions in Genesis, which you have yet to address. You claim that God dictated Scripture word for word. Again, that is your hypothesis. It needs checked out, and I find solid evidence it isn't the case. Indeed, at no point does Scripture say how God related to the writers. At no point, does it claim God dictated any of it to them, period. So your assumption has absolutely no biblical basis. You claim that Scripture is the word of God. Where does Scripture ever claim that? In Scripture, the Word of God is a term exclusively reserved for the second person of the Tr8inity, for Christ. It is never ever applied to the written text. Hence, calling Scripture the word of God reeks of bibleolatry.
You talked about the importance of prayer. Sure, prayer is important in studying Scri0ptreu, but you need more than that; you need to carefully study how your preconceived -of biases may or may not fit Scripture. And that is something you are not willing to do.
You said God likes to be called Lord. Well, isn't Christ humble? I sure think so. Does Christ act like a dictator? I sure don't think so. You can call Christ or God Lord, but I think you need to qualify that by saying this is snot in the usual sense of the word, that is, in the sense God is a cosmic dictator.

Where does the Bible say God is an artist luring us to greater beauty? God, in Scripture , does appear to be a great liberator, freeing us from slavery so that we can have a richer, fuller life, obtain greater depth and breadth of experience.

However, let us return tot he immediate issue here, which is how you understand Genesis and other biblical contradictions. I have carefully spelled them out for you. And if you are serious about a theological discussion and want to disagree, you can, but you need to provide a rational rebuttal, which I am not seeking here.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are missing my point here, KWCrazy. Again, my point is why should I buy your interpretation of Scripture.

You shouldn't. You should believe what Christ taught.

Let's take the example of Christ and Noah. You automatically assume Christ is talking about a worldwide flood. But who says you are correct?

Matthew 24:
7 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Note the inclusive word, all.
As none but Noah's family escaped the flood, none but those with Christ will escape the end of mankind. Christ
could have set the record straight if it had been a local flood, but since it was not He used the global purge as an example of what is to come.

By the way. Have you ever even bothered to look at a topographical map of the area? It's relatively flat with easy run-off to the sea. A local deluge would run off to the sea and at the point you would need to rise the sea level to flood deeper. If the flood was 1,000 ft above sea level anywhere, it was that deep everywhere.

It really takes a certain degree of desperation to ignore things like the that and cling to an unsupportable claim about a local flood that would have had virtually no relevance in the Scriptures.

Another matter to consider is how much of the sayings of Christ were spin-doctored.

Also in Matthew 24, verse 35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." There are significant penalties for adding or subtracting from the Scriptures. A very diligent effort has been made to preserve the text as originally written. I believe the Word is protected by the Holy Spirit.

You assume that Scripture is inerrant. OK, that is an assumption I am questioning.

Jesus assured us that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God.

I think I did a pretty good job of shooting down your interpretation here, by pointing out key contradictions in Genesis, which you have yet to address.

I considered it a sophomoric attempt which didn't demonstrate a detailed reading of what was written. As I pointed out, there are NOT two creation accounts.
If you want another source:
The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.
source

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God). For a book that is dedicated to the relationship between humans and God, four verses seems like a rather poor explanation for the creation of God's preeminent creature. This is because Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3.
source

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.
source

There are not two creation accounts. Period. End of story.

You claim that Scripture is the word of God. Where does Scripture ever claim that?

Take a look at what Jesus taught.

You said God likes to be called Lord. Well, isn't Christ humble? I sure think so. Does Christ act like a dictator? I sure don't think so.

Deuteronomy 10:12 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

And if you are serious about a theological discussion and want to disagree, you can, but you need to provide a rational rebuttal, which I am not seeking here.

I'm the rational one. You live in a delusion in which your obviously incorrect interpretations were not spelled out for you. Anyone could see your error in pretending that Genesis 2 was a separate and inconsistent narration of the creation of the universe. It's a rather common mistake among those who are seeking to find a way for the Bible to allow for belief in evolution. Unfortunately for you, the Scriptures very clearly state that man was created on the sixth day from the dust of the earth. Adam was never a baby, had no parents, and assuredly did not evolve from anything.

 

[Deidre32]

How did Jesus interpret it? He WAS there.
Jesus said that the Scriptures were accurate and He taught from them.

So do you believe that evolution is a scientific myth?

 

[KWCrazy]

So do you believe that evolution is a scientific myth?

I believe it is the epitome of bad science, believed only because of the dearth of competing alternatives. Miller-Urey disproved abiogenesis, mutating fruit flies over thousands of generations disproved increasing complexity via genetic mutations and yet both failures are dubbed as great successes. The idea of an original progenitor is tragic foolishness and the pretending that the universe is governed strictly by physical laws despite centuries of evidence to the contrary is myopic at best.

No, I don't believe in magic, unicorns, leprechauns or evolution.

 

[Deidre32]

I believe it is the epitome of bad science, believed only because of the dearth of competing alternatives. Miller-Urey disproved abiogenesis, mutating fruit flies over thousands of generations disproved increasing complexity via genetic mutations and yet both failures are dubbed as great successes. The idea of an original progenitor is tragic foolishness and the pretending that the universe is governed strictly by physical laws despite centuries of evidence to the contrary is myopic at best.

No, I don't believe in magic, unicorns, leprechauns or evolution.

Well, how about believing that God is the impetus behind evolution? That we simply don't know everything, and maybe science and faith can coexist? What do you think of that idea?

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, how about believing that God is the impetus behind evolution? That we simply don't know everything, and maybe science and faith can coexist? What do you think of that idea?

The Fourth Commandment tells us that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, so it that is not true then there is no basis for that commandment. If God did create man on the sixth day, then evolution is in no way possible. The whole part about dust to dust is skewed if man's true origin was plankton. The genealogies of the Bible track the bloodline of Christ from Adam, to Abraham, to David and then to Christ. None of this makes any sense in an evolved world. The fact is, NOTHING about evolution is consistent with the Scriptures.

 

[Hoghead1]

Regarding Genesis, all you did was to reinstate the two-creation theory, which I have already shown unworkable. Again, you should read carefully what I said, before you jump the gun. You have not answered but one of my criticisms of the two-creation theory. By the way, do you believe that Adam had a first wife named Lilith? That was the absurd but logical conclusion of the two-creation theory. Furthermore, as I also pointed out, there are very important linguistic differences between 2 and 1, which 2 probably have been written long before 1. This is a fundamental point of modern biblical scholarship; and if you wish to refute it, then you are going to have to demonstrate a superior knowledge of Hebrew.
It is not a matter of penalties for adding or subtracting from Scripture; it is a matter of how accurate the "original" accounts were. Most scholars believe there was some real degree of spin-doctoring in the "original" accounts.

Where did Christ say that the Bible was all inerrant and where did Christ define what is to be included in the canon? The mere fact that Christ or any other biblical character cites from Scripture does not mean they consider Scripture inerrant or that what they are citing should necessarily be considered part of the canon. There are a number of references to the Apocrypha in the NT. Now, do you assume the Apocryphal is Scripture or no?

Since the time of Augustine, it has been recognized that the plain text of Genesis is not an accurate witness to creation. Since the middle Ages, it has been recognized that fusing the two contradictory accounts into one necessitates giving Adam a first wife. Since the Protestant Reformation, it has been recognized that God did not intend Scripture to bed an accurate geophysical witness. Since your views are way out in left filed relative to these traditions here, the question remains whether or are perhaps a false prophet who has come in from the fringe.