What does the Bible say about creation vs evolution?

[Geralt]

bible says nothing about evolution, only creation.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's absolutely what Darwinian evolution says.

That's absolutely not what Darwinian evolution says.

 

[Papias]

Funny thing, if, and that's a mighty big if, if man evolved from ape, why is ape still around?
.

Funny thing, if, and that's a mighty big if, if many Americans descended from Germans (such as I), why is German still around?

 

[Papias]

source

Yes, that is the data I was referring to - that about half of scientists who believe in evolution are believers.

 

[Dirk1540]

Oh boy. Man didn't evolve from an ape. He is an ape, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos.

If a dog gave birth to a fish then evolution would be false. Because, no, that's not what evolution says.

-CryptoLutheran

I wish more threads about theistic evolution didn't talk about science at all but just got into Genesis exegesis only. What are your takes on the genre of Genesis 1 and 2? Do we have similar genres from other ancient near east cultures that would lend weight to the argument that creation accounts were not even attempting to be literal?

What are your favorite Hebrew arguments that suggest it's not literal, instead of just saying that it's not literal. How do you respond to the verse where God formed man out of the dirt, after all other species were already in existence? In the end is it really less insulting to think that man is technically an enlightened pile of dirt as opposed to an enlightened animal?

 

[lesliedellow]

I wish more threads about theistic evolution didn't talk about science at all but just got into Genesis exegesis only. What are your takes on the genre of Genesis 1 and 2? Do we have similar genres from other ancient near east cultures that would lend weight to the argument that creation accounts were not even attempting to be literal?

My take on Genesis 1 is that it is a polemic against the pagan cults which assigned different aspects of Creation to different gods. So there was a Sun god, a Moon god, a god for agriculture, and so on. Genesis 1 is insisting that all these different aspects of nature have their origins in the one true God, who is Creator of all things.

In the end is it really less insulting to think that man is technically an enlightened pile of dirt as opposed to an enlightened animal?

It is not a question of which is the more enlightened, but which is true; if you want to limit it to the question of physical origins. So far as a non-literal reading of man being formed from the dust of the ground is concerned, three things immediately come to mind:

a.) We are created.
b.) We are of the same "stuff" as the rest of creation.
c.) But we have a special status, as being in communion with our Creator.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I wish more threads about theistic evolution didn't talk about science at all but just got into Genesis exegesis only. What are your takes on the genre of Genesis 1 and 2?.............

Someone actually just started a thread on those 2 verses concerning the Gap Theory, for those interested

What is the Gap Theory?
Did anything happen between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's absolutely what Darwinian evolution says.

It absolutely is not.

The changing of "kinds" through random and meaningless, yet somehow miraculously beneficial, genetic mutation over time. At some point during the long string of genetic mutations "A kind" will have to give birth to a "Z kind" and they will be genetically incapable of breeding together. In addition, "Z kind" will have miraculously gained a significant amount of genetic information.

The changes are in populations over time. A cat will always give birth to a cat. A dog will always give birth to a dog.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Funny thing, if, and that's a mighty big if, if man evolved from ape, why is ape still around?

Human beings are apes. "Ape" describes a group of which humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees are part of. Just as canines describes a group of which wolves, jackals, and coyotes are part of.

But if you want an example of why the question is plain silly: if domesticated dogs are descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dirk1540]

My take on Genesis 1 is that it is a polemic against the pagan cults which assigned different aspects of Creation to different gods. So there was a Sun god, a Moon god, a god for agriculture, and so on. Genesis 1 is insisting that all these different aspects of nature have their origins in the one true God, who is Creator of all things.

I like this observation a lot!! IF it is true it would really make a lot of sense.

Someone actually just started a thread on those 2 verses concerning the Gap Theory, for those interested

What is the Gap Theory?
Did anything happen between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

Yes I do believe I saw that, it did however just seem to be about age of the Earth and not theistic evolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, that is the data I was referring to - that about half of scientists who believe in evolution are believers.

They believe in something, but 77% do not believe in God.

 

[Dirk1540]

It seems to me that humans being a pile of 'God Breathed' dirt vs humans being a God Breathed spin off from an ape evolutionary line would be much less of an issue than whether or not either process was random or guided. No?? Wouldn't guided human evolution lead us right back to God anyway? It's the 'Random' part of atheism that I find to be the absurd part.

I'm actually shocked at how very recently I started entertaining the thought that common decent might be true...yet how little I realized it would effect me if I changed my mind.

 

[gordonhooker]

The Bible doesn't say anything about creation versus evolution - why would it the Bible is not a science text book?

 

[Living Soul]

The changes are in populations over time. A cat will always give birth to a cat. A dog will always give birth to a dog.

-CryptoLutheran

I actually agree with you there, and that's called breeding/adaptation or otherwise know as microevolution.

Unfortunately, in order for Darwinian evolution to be true, your statements can not be true. Cats have not always existed, so where did they come from if cats can only give birth to cats. Breeding and adaptation are forms of microevolution, which have nothing to do with Darwinian (macro) evolution.

Which do you believe is described in Genesis? God created a man, or God created a single-celled organism that over billions of years evolved into a man?

I'd say the latter takes far more faith than the former.

 

[Papias]

.

Living Soul, did you see my reply to our discussion, at post #18? I pointed out that your idea of the whole universe being "the firmament" is not scriptural, and changes the meaning of the word. The word "raqia" in Hebrew literally means "hard bowl". You also didn't seem to notice all of the clear evidence of this given in post #15. I can copy it for your convenience if you'd like.

In Christ -
papais

 

[Papias]

That is a psalm for praise and the language clearly is metaphor.

Yes, of course it is. And that's that same with Genesis 1.

This verse is God communicating a truth to mankind in a concrete language of the Bronze Age.
In Colossians 1:17 St. Paul explains this in more detail.

And so you agree that's the case for all of Gen 1?

Considering no one claimed the world was flat even in the OT, the statement is irrelevant.

Both Catholic and Protestant Bible scholars and theologians have long recognized that the OT and NT both are clear that the world is flat, under a hard dome, with the stars, sun and moon as little objects inside the dome. This fits what you said above about the bronze age language.

Here is an overview of some of the support for that:

Yes, the ancient Hebrew cosmology of a flat earth under a hard dome is repeated over and over in the Bibles, which has been accepted by Christians from the start all the way up through Martin Luther, and is obvious to modern Bible Scholars as well. In fact, we celebrate this flat earth view every December, because the whole "Star of Bethelehem" story only makes sense with this 'hard dome above us' view. Here (from before) are just some of the places were this is clear:

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Here is a good explanation of this by a well known and respected Bible scholar, who reflects the view of practically all open bible scholars. In fact, the reality that the Bibles describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, underwater, is so well accepted among clergy and Bible scholars that it's taught in most seminaries. Ask your pastor - he'll probably confirm it too.​

The inconvenient truth is Jesus and His apostles confirm Genesis is literal and not allegorical.

Quite the opposite. For instance, Jesus said in both Mk (10) and Mt (19):

But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'​

That doesn't fit a literal reading, because in a literal reading, God makes just the male (Adam), and then later makes the female (Eve). It fits evolution nicely, because genders evolved long before people did, so people were indeed "made male and female from the beginning".

Jesus himself is telling us that evolution is correct and a literal reading is incorrect.

As your own catechism states the Bible is the Inspired Word of God written by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit in the language and style of the human writer.

Of course! And as you pointed out with the moon example - writing in bronze age language doesn't mean that bronze age language has to be taken literally, unless you really think we do live under a hard dome with the moon stuck to it.

In fact, Christians do more to promote evolution than anyone else. The biggest institution teaching evolution in the world is the Catholic church, with hundreds of universities, schools, seminaries, etc - which teach evolution. As Pope Emeritus Benedict pointed out, evolution (common descent) is virtually certain.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

I wish more threads about theistic evolution didn't talk about science at all but just got into Genesis exegesis only. What are your takes on the genre of Genesis 1 and 2? Do we have similar genres from other ancient near east cultures that would lend weight to the argument that creation accounts were not even attempting to be literal?

Yes, this would be good. I don't have time now to write stuff out, but there is a lot there.

What are your favorite Hebrew arguments that suggest it's not literal, instead of just saying that it's not literal.

Right - I'll have to get to write those out. A lot of it is because it's got multiple indicators of Hebrew poetry.

How do you respond to the verse where God formed man out of the dirt, after all other species were already in existence?

Because it's not literal, just like Ps 139 says babies are made by knitting (not cell-division) and Gen 1:17 says that the moon is held up by God sticking it to the hard dome firmament (not gravity).

It's also worth noting (another non-literal indicator) that while Gen 1 does say that man was made after the animals, Gen 2 is quite clear that man was made before the animals. They can't both be literally true.

Also - did you see my response to you, in post #34 on this thread? I can copy it here for your convenience.

In the end is it really less insulting to think that man is technically an enlightened pile of dirt as opposed to an enlightened animal?

I agree, it's not. Personally, I find animals a lot more appealing than mud, so the YEC literal story seems more insulting to me - as if "insultingness" was even a rational reason to decide what's true anyway.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

Christians do more to promote evolution than anyone else.

What did Jesus teach?
He said if you didn't believe Moses you wouldn't believe Him, and you don't believe what Moses said.
He quoted Genesis and said that "from the beginning" God created them male and female. You reject this.
He affirmed that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God, which included Exodus 20:11 where God Himself proclaimed that He created the world in six days.
He spoke of Noah by name and of the flood as an actual event.
He taught that the Bible was true, and neither jot not tittle would pass away until he returned.

In other words, He thought a lot more of the Bible than some of his followers demonstrate.

 

[Dirk1540]

Yes, this would be good. I don't have time now to write stuff out, but there is a lot there.

Right - I'll have to get to write those out. A lot of it is because it's got multiple indicators of Hebrew poetry.

Ok thanks, I'm busy at work now myself, I hope you do write more!!

Also - did you see my response to you, in post #34 on this thread? I can copy it here for your convenience.

Maybe, maybe not, sometimes the alerts don't work for me. I'll check it out when I get down time.

- as if "insultingness" was even a rational reason to decide what's true anyway.

I agree. I just said it because I get the impression that for a lot of people that seems to be their driving force, that it's insulting that we have a relation to apes.

EDIT...ok you know what, i did see your post #34 and now I remember that I got distracted, so the alert was gone and I forgot got to go back to it. I'll check it out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I actually agree with you there, and that's called breeding/adaptation or otherwise know as microevolution.

Unfortunately, in order for Darwinian evolution to be true, your statements can not be true. Cats have not always existed, so where did they come from if cats can only give birth to cats. Breeding and adaptation are forms of microevolution, which have nothing to do with Darwinian (macro) evolution.

Which do you believe is described in Genesis? God created a man, or God created a single-celled organism that over billions of years evolved into a man?

I'd say the latter takes far more faith than the former.

When over successive generations certain adaptations and mutations result in the rise of a new species, we call this speciation. No, there haven't always been cats, and cats evolved; but this occurred over a long period of time. A tiger and a lion are both panthera and share a common ancestor, and all felines share a common ancestor with their most closely related cousins--other members of the clade feliformia, which includes the closest relatives to felines, the palm civets, along with other related groups, civets, mongooses, and more distantly the hyenas.

This is quite different to what you are describing, a species giving birth to a different animal altogether--e.g. a dog giving birth to a fish. If a dog gave birth to a fish then evolution would be false, because that's not evolution.

Evolution would be a population of dogs, over successive generations, adapting and evolving due to environmental pressures and genetic drift resulting in a population related to, but having speciated away from, other dogs--the resulting population would still be descended from dogs and could therefore be phylogenically described as canid, the same reason that modern dogs can be described phylogenically as caniforms, carnivorans, mammals, synapsids, amniots, tetrapods, sarcopterygians, chordates, and eukaryotes. The same reason that birds are manirapotoran theropod dinosaurs, and human beings are great apes.

At no point will a dog ever give birth to a fish. At no point will a population of dogs ever give rise to fish. Dogs will always be dogs, even if the descendent over many, many, many generations markedly different than today's dogs--should a population of dogs adapt and evolve to an aquatic environment and end up taking on a more streamlined body plan, it would still be -dog- based on its phylogeny, not fish. For the same reason that whales are not fish and ichthyosaurs were not fish.

-CryptoLutheran