What Scriptures support Evolution?

[shernren]

To try to claim that scripture is speaking of evolution is eisegesis of the highest order and to fundamentally misunderstand what Paul is saying. And I thought that it was TEs who didn't respect scripture!

Eh, I think he's talking about homosexuality here.

 

[kedata]

Well said. I would agree that sinful tendencies are genetically passed on as a result of original sin. What I have trouble accepting is how the claim of having been born with those tendencies is being twisted and used to excuse homosexual behavior for Christians based on the idea that they were "born that way" therefore God must want then to act that way.

We are each born with our own sinful weaknesses and as you said develop some based on circumstances as we grow up as well.

 

[theFijian]

Eh, I think he's talking about homosexuality here.

Oh aye, helps if you read posts in context dont it?

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

The bible presents an outdated cosmology:

e.g. "And God made the firmament [i.e. solid "dome"], and divided the waters which were under the firmament [i.e. oceans etc] from the waters which were above the firmament [i.e. the source of rain]: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven" (Genesis 1:7-8).

"the windows of heaven were opened" [understood as literal openings in the firmament] (Genesis 7:11).

"four corners of the earth" Isa 11:12 & Rev 7:10; interpreted literally, this phrase implies a flat earth.

There is a scene where Satan leads Jesus to a mountain peak to observe all the kingdoms of the earth; this also implies a flat earth.

Not so. It is actually speaking of the cardinal directions, north, east, south and west.

Except the Bible does teach a circular earth:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to live in (Isaiah 40:22)

Job also speaks of the earth being round:

He stretches out Zaphon over the void,
and hangs the earth upon nothing. (Job 26:7)

 

[callmeMurph]

Not so. It is actually speaking of the cardinal directions, north, east, south and west.

Please explain, i don't even get a hint of that in what you bolded. Maybe the four corners of the earth...However, the earth doesn't have 4 corners. Lets be honest though, without the technology and understanding that we have now, they would have no reason to believe that the earth was an oblate spheroid.

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

But the early Bible writers did believe in a round earth. The cardinal points, north, south, east and west, are also referred to as the "four corners of the world." This does not mean that the writers believed in a flat earth, any more than the ancient Greeks did. Check the Bible references for this and you will see at least four entries where the writer states a belief in a round world.

The ancients were a lot cleverer than we give them credit for, and much of their science and technology was lost in the dark ages.

And as the Bible was inspired by God then He would know if it was round or not?

 

[Jase]

But the early Bible writers did believe in a round earth.

They believed the Earth was a flat disc, not an oblate spheroid. Hebrew does have a word for "ball" which would have at least been slightly more accurate, but they instead used the word for a 2 dimensional circle.

The cardinal points, north, south, east and west, are also referred to as the "four corners of the world." This does not mean that the writers believed in a flat earth, any more than the ancient Greeks did. Check the Bible references for this and you will see at least four entries where the writer states a belief in a round world.

A tent cannot fit on top of a spherical earth. Nor can you see all the world's kingdoms from a tall tree at the center of the Earth.

The Bible is quite clear that they believed it was flat.

And as the Bible was inspired by God then He would know if it was round or not?

What makes you think he would bother to clue them in? Does the Bible make it apparent that God's purpose with the Israelites was to correct them on proper scientific knowledge? Did he teach Moses about Quantum Mechanics, String theory, quarks, or pulsars?

If the Israelites believed in a primitive world, why wouldn't God just use their knowledge to get theological points across?

 

[shernren]

The cardinal points, north, south, east and west, are also referred to as the "four corners of the world."

Are they? I'm curious to see you back this up. I myself haven't looked very much into that interpretation of the phrase.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

But the early Bible writers did believe in a round earth. The cardinal points, north, south, east and west, are also referred to as the "four corners of the world." This does not mean that the writers believed in a flat earth, any more than the ancient Greeks did. Check the Bible references for this and you will see at least four entries where the writer states a belief in a round world.

The ancients were a lot cleverer than we give them credit for, and much of their science and technology was lost in the dark ages.

And as the Bible was inspired by God then He would know if it was round or not?

For the record, the medieval people believed in a round earth. The myth that Columbus set out to prove the earth was round is just that, it's a myth. What Columbus actually sought to do was prove that it was feasible to get to India by sailing West; nobody doubted that it was theoretically possible, only that there was entirely too much ocean to cross to get there. Columbus was convinced that the math other people had done was wrong, and that the earth was smaller. In point of fact, Columbus actually was wrong, he was just fortunate there was land between Europe and the Orient.

One of the big reasons a big deal is made of Columbus is most likely because the early Americans needed a symbol other than an Englishman (John Cabot, who was the first non-Scandinavian European to reach the North American mainland), Columbus served that purpose.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

They believed the Earth was a flat disc, not an oblate spheroid. Hebrew does have a word for "ball" which would have at least been slightly more accurate, but they instead used the word for a 2 dimensional circle.

A tent cannot fit on top of a spherical earth. Nor can you see all the world's kingdoms from a tall tree at the center of the Earth.

The Bible is quite clear that they believed it was flat.


What makes you think he would bother to clue them in? Does the Bible make it apparent that God's purpose with the Israelites was to correct them on proper scientific knowledge? Did he teach Moses about Quantum Mechanics, String theory, quarks, or pulsars?

If the Israelites believed in a primitive world, why wouldn't God just use their knowledge to get theological points across?

I'm not going to argue, just check the verses: The Hebrews believed the world was round.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not going to argue, just check the verses: The Hebrews believed the world was round.

Round and flat aren't two mutually exclusive concepts. A circle is both round and flat.

 

[gluadys]

For the record, the medieval people believed in a round earth. The myth that Columbus set out to prove the earth was round is just that, it's a myth. What Columbus actually sought to do was prove that it was feasible to get to India by sailing West; nobody doubted that it was theoretically possible, only that there was entirely too much ocean to cross to get there. Columbus was convinced that the math other people had done was wrong, and that the earth was smaller. In point of fact, Columbus actually was wrong, he was just fortunate there was land between Europe and the Orient.

One of the big reasons a big deal is made of Columbus is most likely because the early Americans needed a symbol other than an Englishman (John Cabot, who was the first non-Scandinavian European to reach the North American mainland), Columbus served that purpose.

-CryptoLutheran

Though , John Cabot was actually Giovanni Gaboto, an Italian. But his expedition was sponsored by Henry VII of England.

John Cabot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Clockstopper]

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:18-21, KJV).

^ Here we have scripture proclaiming that Man is an animal, in accordance with evolutionary theory. It may not talk about evolution directly, but it at least supports TOE. Also, the person you were debating with is drastically wrong; evolution is by no means synonymous with Darwin - the theory dates as far back as the 4th century BC, and was espoused by numerous ancient philosophers from Zhuangzi to Anaximander to Archelaus.

It is not true that man is an animal. The Bible says both man and animals came from the dust of the earth, in direct special (supernatural) creation, and evolution if found nowhere in the Word. We are either going to trust God and His Word in the matter or Darwin and his followers.

 

[callmeMurph]

It is not true that man is an animal. The Bible says both man and animals came from the dust of the earth, in direct special (supernatural) creation, and evolution if found nowhere in the Word. We are either going to trust God and His Word in the matter or Darwin and his followers.

The Bible is for training in righteousness, not science.

 

[Clockstopper]

The Bible is for training in righteousness, not science.

Neither is the Bible a history book per se, but who would say that it is not full of historical events that are truthfully recorded? Certainly none who are led by God's Holy Spirit.

Likewise, those statements made in scripture which are related to science are accurate and true. Man is not an animal. He was created in the image of God.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27.

 

[Mallon]

Neither is the Bible a history book per se, but who would say that it is not full of historical events that are truthfully recorded?

Similarly, who would say that it is not full of imagery and metaphor? Just pointing to the fact that the Bible contains history doesn't make the Genesis creation account an historical narrative.

 

[Clockstopper]

The Bible also says that God created us individually in the womb (Psalm 139:13).

Ah, but why should we take that any more literally than the six day creation belief, Mr. Mallon? Maybe God meant that the earth itself is the womb and He impregnated the earth with seeds from space... a la panspermia. Maybe God is speaking of the womb as the entire universe and the E.T.'s (i.e. 2001 a Space Odyssey) causes everything to happen.Why not? You can stretch it any way you want it once you leave the plain spoken expression as is seen in the Bible.

 

[Clockstopper]

Similarly, who would say that it is not full of imagery and metaphor? Just pointing to the fact that the Bible contains history doesn't make the Genesis creation account an historical narrative.

The Holy Spirit and common sense.

Having taught English I can tell you that that position is not logical. Any good student of the English language can tell the difference between prose/poetry and literal expressions.

Why therefore, would we conclude that there is any difference between the history found in the details describing the six day creation, or the Noahic flood, as compared with building of Moses tabernacle or the details in the construction of the temple of Solomon? Nowhere in scripture, including the New Testament, is there a hint that any of those accounts are anything less than literal.

The Jews thought of it all is literal and said so.

But compare Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

with;

I Kings 6;1 "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD."

There is no difference in the linguisitic expressions of the two different accounts that were many centuries apart.

 

[Clockstopper]

The Bible is for training in righteousness, not science.

Nonetheless, what I said was correct.

 

[Mallon]

Ah, but why should we take that any more literally than the six day creation belief, Mr. Mallon? Maybe God meant that the earth itself is the womb and He impregnated the earth with seeds from space... a la panspermia. Maybe God is speaking of the womb as the entire universe and the E.T.'s (i.e. 2001 a Space Odyssey) causes everything to happen.Why not? You can stretch it any way you want it once you leave the plain spoken expression as is seen in the Bible.

Not quite sure what you're taking issue with, here. My original response to kedata was in reaction to his conflating "creation" with "fiat creation". Do you believe the two to be synonymous? Do you believe that God can only create miraculously, and not naturally?