Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[artybloke]

chapter one has a clear distinction between it and chapter 2

That's partly because they're written by two different people at different times. They may well have had different purposes originally. But the redactor of Genesis presumably put the two passages together for a purpose, so you can't ignore the fact that the one comes after the other. I don't see how, if the redactor put the two together, you can ignore the fact that they are part - for him or they - of the same overall scheme.

 

[stumpjumper]

I agree with that but you neglect chapter 1. chapter one has a clear distinction between it and chapter 2 which means that chapter 1 has its own seperate meaning. It does not go along with the estrangement from God nor is it concerned with evil. Chapter 1 has it's own purpose and it seems pretty clear what it is.

Arty and I follow the same view of scripture and how it was put together. However, in chapter 1 Adam is a common noun with the ha to denote mankind. Chapter 1 is primarily concerned with creation from the Creator's perspective and does not concern personal evil but our ontological origin or source which is God.

 

[Smidlee]

That is why TE's pretty much have to have their own translation of the Bible. Notice what shernren was arguing about in Mark 10:6. Everyone who has ever translated it, made it pretty clear, but for whatever reason he had to twist it and make it something that it's not in order to prove his point.

Same with the beginning of Genesis. It is clear to anyone reading it (including a jewish audience), Adam was as real as Abraham in the book, but that doesn't coincide with evolution, so Adam is a myth, but Abraham is more believable so he is okay to believe existed.

As for shernren view of Adam being a real man but not the first man, he is just plain making the bible say what he wants. He follows it as long as it fits in with evolution, every part that doesn't has some hidden meaning that could not have been known until now. Why God would hide this meaning until we discovered evolution is another question.

You hit the nail on the head.Most TE uses the evolution dogma to interpret the scriptures. Since Abraham doesn't contradict this dogma then he is real but Adam isn't real because any evidence, no matter how strong, that stands againest Darwinsm has to be false so you must interpret everything according to Darwinism. So evolution is used by Darwinism as truth. Since our interpretion isn't based Darwinism then in their eyes we are false prophets. Darwinsm is the tool they used to determine truth form error yet amazingly God fail to mention this requirment in the scriptures itself when it comes to spotting error.
PBS evolution series used this same logic; any religion accepts evolution (Darwinism) is good and any who dares stands againest their dogma is evil or atleast insane. This is the results of idolatry. It's blasphemy to mention any other god accept evolution in the temple of science. ACLU is attacking schools in Dover just because the very mention of something beside the evolution god.

 

[QuantumFlux]

That's partly because they're written by two different people at different times.

That is an assumption that you cannot prove.

[QUOTEArty and I follow the same view of scripture and how it was put together. However, in chapter 1 Adam is a common noun with the ha to denote mankind. Chapter 1 is primarily concerned with creation from the Creator's perspective and does not concern personal evil but our ontological origin or source which is God.][/QUOTE]

You still mistify me at your reasoning. I have yet to find one justification you use for Genesis as a myth that you couldn't just as easily apply to the gospels.

 

[artybloke]

Y

ou still mistify me at your reasoning. I have yet to find one justification you use for Genesis as a myth that you couldn't just as easily apply to the gospels.

1) The Gospels were written at most 50-60 years after the events they are telling us about. The Genesis stories were written thousands of years after the events they wrote about. There is much less scope for the oral tradition to event a whole mythology.

2) There are no real links between the Gospel narratives and the mythology of any other nation at the time, unlike the links between Genesis and the Enuma Elish/Gilgamesh accounts.

3) The events of the Gospel take place at a specific, locatable time in a specific locatable time period, so even if they were fictional or had fictional elements, unlike the Genesis accounts they would not be identified as belonging to the genre of "myth." Legend, perhaps; but not myth.

4) On what is our faith based? A highly modernistic literalist reading of the first book of the Bible, or the life, death and resurection of Christ? While I'd accept that there is no absolute proof that any of the Gospels are factual (proof is for maths and alcohol), a Christian's faith depends on Christ, not on a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[artybloke]

That is an assumption that you cannot prove.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. All I can say is that the evidence points more toward multiple authorship of the Penteteuch that towards Mosaic authorship.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Proof is for maths and alcohol. All I can say is that the evidence points more toward multiple authorship of the Penteteuch that towards Mosaic authorship.

Thanks for your opinion, I disagree.

1) The Gospels were written at most 50-60 years after the events they are telling us about. The Genesis stories were written thousands of years after the events they wrote about. There is much less scope for the oral tradition to event a whole mythology.

How do you know that the events in Genesis were not written down 50-60 years after the events? You can't say because we dont have the manuscripts to prove it, because we dont have the manuscripts to prove that the gospels were writeen 50-60 years after the events (it was more like 20-30 years btw).

Our earliest manuscript is 250 years after the events and was not kept accurate by the jews, so who knows what could have been added or taken away (i'm obviously playing devils advocate right now). You still believe the gospels dispite this fact, but disbelieve Genesis for the same reason.

2) There are no real links between the Gospel narratives and the mythology of any other nation at the time, unlike the links between Genesis and the Enuma Elish/Gilgamesh accounts.

Are you joking? The story of Jesus walking on the water was specifically written because one of the famous greek gods of the time was said to have done the same thing. There are other things that Jesus says that he takes from the doctrine of other religions some of which are given on the sermon on the mount.

3) The events of the Gospel take place at a specific, locatable time in a specific locatable time period, so even if they were fictional or had fictional elements, unlike the Genesis accounts they would not be identified as belonging to the genre of "myth." Legend, perhaps; but not myth.

You know there are still cities in the gospels that have yet to be discovered, that doesn't mean they didn't exist. The same applies for Eden.

4) On what is our faith based? A highly modernistic literalist reading of the first book of the Bible, or the life, death and resurection of Christ? While I'd accept that there is no absolute proof that any of the Gospels are factual (proof is for maths and alcohol), a Christian's faith depends on Christ, not on a literal reading of Genesis.

It is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, but your logic is paradoxical. You believe Genesis is a myth or legend because of the yard stick you hold up to it, but you seem afraid to hold that same yard stick up to the gospels.


You have the view point that one of my college professors had. If it has something in common with other religions then it spawned from the other and they are all made up. I hold a different view, that when the bible shows similarities to other religions, it is not proof that they are both made up, but that God has influenced the other religion as well and that the inspired word of God holds the true original story.

 

[stumpjumper]

You still mistify me at your reasoning. I have yet to find one justification you use for Genesis as a myth that you couldn't just as easily apply to the gospels.

How do you know that the events in Genesis were not written down 50-60 years after the events? You can't say because we dont have the manuscripts to prove it, because we dont have the manuscripts to prove that the gospels were writeen 50-60 years after the events (it was more like 20-30 years btw).

Because I believe the intent of Genesis is to relay theological truths in mythical format. The intent of the Gospels is to give an historical account. There are parts of the Gospels that have no theological significance such as Jesus writing in the sand in front of the Pharisees. There are parts of the OT that were written as historical books (even if the truth was stretched in places) which come after the Torah and are called the Historical books.

In regards to the Gospels, I don't view them as legend because they are not written well enough (to quote CS Lewis). They are historical accounts that give us the history of Jesus to the best of the ability of the human authors with some cultural factors mixed in. I do not hold to verbal inspiration to any part of the Bible although I do agree that the authors of the NT were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that what we have is what we ought to have.

Even if you follow the conservative view of the Genesis and the Torah it was written thousands of years after the events that transpired. Moses was removed from Abraham by quite a distance and from the Big Bang by about 13 billion years

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution but I have read a book by Walter Wink about how the parables and Sermon on The Mount is thoroughly jewish in what was meant and how it applies to the time. Here is an excerpt from one of his books http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm

Gotta run.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Because I believe the intent of Genesis is to relay theological truths in mythical format. The intent of the Gospels is to give an historical account.

Again this is a swayed view. As a historical account the gospels are severely lacking. You have Jesus birth, Jesus at age 12ish, then you have Jesus at 30. Now that is some huge gaps in this historical account.

Eusebius was the first church historian, his intent was to write down historical events. The Gospels were more focused on giving their accounts of his ministry. You're idea that Genesis was given as theological truth in mythical format is complete assumption based solely on your belief in evolution.

This is shown through your yard stick held up to it, because the same yard stick would prove that the gospels were a myth.

 

[stumpjumper]

Again this is a swayed view. As a historical account the gospels are severely lacking. You have Jesus birth, Jesus at age 12ish, then you have Jesus at 30. Now that is some huge gaps in this historical account.

Eusebius was the first church historian, his intent was to write down historical events. The Gospels were more focused on giving their accounts of his ministry. You're idea that Genesis was given as theological truth in mythical format is complete assumption based solely on your belief in evolution.

This is shown through your yard stick held up to it, because the same yard stick would prove that the gospels were a myth.

Just because the Gospels do not depict the entire life of Jesus does not mean that are not historical accounts of his ministry. If you read Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in The Setting of Hellenistic History you will see that much of the surroundings and history in Acts are accurate. The history in the Gospels is centered around Jesus' ministry. I and no other Christian should really care how many tables Jesus made as a carpenter in his early 20's. In that regard then they have all the history that we need. No yardstick that I would hold up to the NT would conclude that they are myth except for the parables from the historical Jesus. Again, you are guilty of looking at the Bible with a view that all parts should be read the same way.

So without any modern scientific knowlede I would conclude, as many Christians and Jewish scholars in the past have including St. Jerome, Origen, Philo, and the entire Pharisaical view of scripture , that Genesis is not literal history with or without any knowledge of evolution. It just does not read as literal history and makes no sense as a literal history. At the very least look at the different ways Adam is used in Genesis in how I put them out earlier. Those are facts that are drawn from the original hebrew and that alone shows that parts of the Adam and Eve story a shown to be written to denote that the story is much more than what is just written. Look up for yourself the use of Adam as a common and proper noun even within the parts that included Adam and Eve. Genesis 4 would be a good start.

 

[Critias]

Well here is my view on Adam and Eve. First, I am sure we have a different view of the origin of scripture but I have read a TE exegesis from the view that scripture was verbally inspired by God as well as my view that it was an oral tradition passed down over generations. In both views scripture is inspired by God however it is the method of inspiration that is varied.

In Genesis 1:26 Adam is written in the Hebrew as eth-ha-adam and is translated as "let us make man in our image". You also have the plural Elohim for "us". Instead of translating that as man a direct translation of "eth-ha-adam" would be in the context of the passage "human like life forms" because of the plurality of both the object and the plurality of the originator and the commonality of the noun in that case.

I personally wouldn't agree with the definition of "human like life form", I don't think that is a good definition of the Hebrew word ed).

One objection that can be raised by your pointing out of pluralism is that

1. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are all Elohim and thus is why the word is plural. I think this you know and agree to.

2. On day six of creation, God created Adam and Eve. Thus being two, it ed) is plural to refer to both of them. Look onward to verse 27 of Genesis chapter 1 to see that this is in fact true.

Now in Genesis 2, you have a different name for God. Elohim has been changed to YHWH Elohim a more personal and singular "Lord God" and Adam has been changed to the singular as well with a simple "eth-adam". I view this change as a literary and contextual change to give the meaning of what happened in the mythical Garden to all man. Because, our estrangement from God is universal whether there was an actual Adam as figurehead of mankind matters not to me. You remember our converstation about Original Sin about 40 pages ago so I won't get into what the Tree of Knowledge means but it is a proper and personal Adam and Eve and a personal God because it is a personal trait that all of us hold between each other and God. I am convinced of original sin and the arrogance and pride of humanity.

My objection here would be that YHWH Elohim, Elohim specifically, is still plural.

I am sure you are aware that Adam can mean Adam-the first man, man, and mankind depending upon its usage within the given context. We see often in the Old Testament that man is used to speak about more than 1 man and is used to speak specifically of 1 man. The context being the key.

When you are pointing out the changes, from plural to singular this should be understood as going from more than 1 man(Adam and Eve and from them all humanity) and then to the singular usage of 1 man(Adam). I believe this is where consistency of a rejection of a real Adam has its difficulties.

But, now go to Genesis 4 and the eth in Adam has been changed back to a ha-adam which can never be used to denote an individual person. In fact in my Catholic Bible it states: Gen 4.1 "The man had relations with his wife Eve and she concieved and bore Cain, "Saying I have produced man with the help of the LORD. (just YHWH) Next she bore his brother Abel."

Genesis 4:1 is speaking of a singular man and within context this man is understood to be Adam, since he is Eve's husband. The correct translation of eFdF)rw (missing a couple subscripts i don't have them in this font) is 'And the man', being singular and specific of a certain man that has been talked about thus far, Adam.

Notice as well as the singular "I" in Genesis 4:1 which you have quoted above. It refers to a specific person.

It does not say proper Adam in the original hebrew. So the best way to understand this passage is by saying that men (plural) had relations with their wives (singular possesive) and had sons. Now you know the story of Cain and Abel and how Cain killed Abel. It was saying that we multiplied and warred amongst ourselves even though we are all related. The hebrew word for blood was also plural when Cain killed Abel so it says more to the tune: "Our sons killed each other and their blood(s) were on the ground. (It loses its effect in english because of the translation.)

Again, the word is not plural so that would be incorrect.

Anyway, the early parts of Genesis are primarily concerned with evil, our estrangement from God, and our ontological origin. IMO, not a literal history and that is why I do not believe Adam was a literal person. In parts of the story he is given a life-span and a real wife and children but that is part of the literary garb to denote a personalness about our relationship with each other and the Lord God.

I disagree with a bit of that, but I am not interested in arguing our beliefs so that we each attack one anothers faith when it is in the same God.

The above pieces are in Hebrew, if you don't have the font, send me a pm. I would be happy to send it to you, if you like.

 

[Critias]

Proof is for maths and alcohol. All I can say is that the evidence points more toward multiple authorship of the Penteteuch that towards Mosaic authorship.

I am curious, what evidence? Is your belief based off the work others have done when reading the Hebrew version and thus you accept it? Or did you do the work yourself and then come to this conclusion in the Original Hebrew?

 

[stumpjumper]

I personally wouldn't agree with the definition of "human like life form", I don't think that is a good definition of the Hebrew word ed).

That is taken from a view of which I am not in total agreement. That was a step by step translation of Genesis showing that Genesis actually alludes to evolving life. I guess gap creation was the view and it presupposes inerrancy. I am not an inerrantist but that was the translation that was used.

2. On day six of creation, God created Adam and Eve. Thus being two, it ed) is plural to refer to both of them. Look onward to verse 27 of Genesis chapter 1 to see that this is in fact true.

Yes but 1:26 does use the common Adam and we know that Eve was made from Adam's rib in Genesis 2 while Genesis 1:27 shows humans created male and female at the same time. Now my view is that this was redacted from oral tradition anyway, but let's assume inerrancy and verbal inspiration and you might have a reason to believe that Genesis 2 was written to describe our personal relationship with the Lord God, the fact that we were created in God's image, and Original Sin. Those truths are evident without a literal Garden of Eden in physical time and space and they were written in such a way to denote creation from the human perspective.

I am sure you are aware that Adam can mean Adam-the first man, man, and mankind depending upon its usage within the given context. We see often in the Old Testament that man is used to speak about more than 1 man and is used to speak specifically of 1 man. The context being the key.

Yes, that's my point. In Genesis 2 the context is a proper Adam however it is changed to common Adam in Genesis 4 with what a cursory reading would lead us to believe are the same people. To reject the real Adam even while accepting inerrancy and verbal inspiration we would look at the truths found in Genesis 2 to denote personal and individual aspects of human relationships to YHWH. While passages like Genesis 4 would display our personal aspects in the context of societies. Cain was worried about the repurcussions of his killing Abel from people in cities. From a literal reading they would have to be his biological brothers and sisters or possibly sons or nieces or nephews. But if we look at it from the view of a passage that denotes what happens when different groups come into conflict such as Pastorlist Abel and Argriculturalist Cain and Cain taking his crops into cities it makes a little more sense.

I believe this is where consistency of a rejection of a real Adam has its difficulties.

Possibly by reconciling it to the letter but there are probably more problems within the text and with reconciling it to what we know about the world to say that Adam must have physically existed and been the first man. Although I think there is truth in saying that sin came from the first man but thats another story.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Just because the Gospels do not depict the entire life of Jesus does not mean that are not historical accounts of his ministry. If you read Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in The Setting of Hellenistic History you will see that much of the surroundings and history in Acts are accurate.

The only difference here is that we dont have cooberating evidence for the genesis story. Again not proving it false.

No yardstick that I would hold up to the NT would conclude that they are myth except for the parables from the historical Jesus.

Then you have changed yard sticks because those reasons you gave earlier for thinking it myth also apply to the gospels.

Again, you are guilty of looking at the Bible with a view that all parts should be read the same way.

Again? I don't think I have ever been accused as such, nor do I think I should be. I've done my own back ground research into each book of the bible, on top of that I have had classes on each book of the bible accept for the prophetic writings. Trust me, I see each book as individually as they are written.

Genesis is written just as historically as the gospels, neither of which are written merely for historical value. Mark may have spoken with Peter, but he himself did not witness the events in which he wrote about. Same deal with Genesis.

So without any modern scientific knowlede I would conclude, as many Christians and Jewish scholars in the past have including St. Jerome, Origen, Philo, and the entire Pharisaical view of scripture , that Genesis is not literal history with or without any knowledge of evolution

Funny how it is that your list of "Jewish scholars" are not jewish themselves accept maybe the pharasees but I'll have to double check, pretty sure they took the creation story literal as well, especially considering their view of the after-life. Even if they didn't, they were one of the 4 sects of the time, the other 3 all took it literal and the pharisees would have been the first of the jews out of there thousands of previous years to believe such a thing.

At the very least look at the different ways Adam is used in Genesis in how I put them out earlier. Those are facts that are drawn from the original hebrew and that alone shows that parts of the Adam and Eve story a shown to be written to denote that the story is much more than what is just written. Look up for yourself the use of Adam as a common and proper noun even within the parts that included Adam and Eve. Genesis 4 would be a good start.

You honestly believe that you can translate hebrew better than a jew? You're points of a plural use of man and singular Adam did not make a difference in the context of the chapters. Though with fear of being repetative, Mark 10:6 shows how Jesus himself interpreted Genesis. I'll stick with his interpretation.

 

[stumpjumper]

"Mark 10:6 shows how Jesus himself interpreted Genesis. I'll stick with his interpretation."

Just remember that Mark wrote Mark not Jesus.

But, all Mark 10:6 states is "But from the beginning of creation "God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife." Jesus is talking about the importance and sanctity of marraige between men and women. I support legal civil unions between same sexes but for this reason I do object to same sex marraiges. That is about all you can really get out of that passage unless you want to proof-text it out of context.

If we are going to proof text, I could prove that dragons are real, God commands swinging, and after women give birth to sons they grow wings. The context of Mark 10 is marraige. Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of their existence.

Philo was Jewish. There are some very interesting quotes in On Allegory

 

[QuantumFlux]

But, all Mark 10:6 states is "But from the beginning of creation "God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife." Jesus is talking about the importance and sanctity of marraige between men and women. I support legal civil unions between same sexes but for this reason I do object to same sex marraiges. That is about all you can really get out of that passage unless you want to proof-text it out of context.

I've shown before how it is not taking it out of context. Yes the main point of the passage is about marriage (i've said that from the beginning), but you can't deny that Jesus ideals on the beginning of creation show in it.

Part of context is the main point, however, other points smaller ideals can show through them.

Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of their existence.

Ah, but that isn't quite what he said is it? That is the evolutionary version (there ya go, now you have you're own translation, the EV). What you would have said, had your evolutionary ideals not conflicted would have been "Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of creation." where creation is a singular noun not representing just homo-sapiens but creation as a whole.

Mark may have written it, but something tells me he taught Peter enough not to misquote him.

 

[stumpjumper]

Ah, but that isn't quite what he said is it? That is the evolutionary version (there ya go, now you have you're own translation, the EV). What you would have said, had your evolutionary ideals not conflicted would have been "Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of creation." where creation is a singular noun not representing just homo-sapiens but creation as a whole.

Mark may have written it, but something tells me he taught Peter enough not to misquote him.

But what part of the "beginning of creation" are you as YEC (if that's your belief) starting from? Animals did not appear until day five with humans on day six. That is not the beginning even in the text of Genesis so using it as proof that Jesus believed in a literal Genesis is problematic. Now depending upon what one would call life, from an evolutionary perspective Mark 10 could still be correct. I do not think Mark endorses evolution any more than it should be used to endorse YEC but it could easily apply to both views.

 

[QuantumFlux]

But what part of the "beginning of creation" are you as YEC (if that's your belief) starting from? Animals did not appear until day five with humans on day six. That is not the beginning even in the text of Genesis so using it as proof that Jesus believed in a literal Genesis is problematic. Now depending upon what one would call life, from an evolutionary perspective Mark 10 could still be correct. I do not think Mark endorses evolution any more than it should be used to endorse YEC but it could easily apply to both views.

This is where you keep screwing over your ideas. It is easy to consider day 5 of 2 million as the beginning, anyone can see that. However, I dont know anyone who can see year 3 billion of anything as the beginning.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Another look is at Luke's geneology. In order to make Jesus messiah it would only be neccessary to trace Jesus geneology back to David, why go all the way back to Adam? I highly doubt matthew or luke made up these geneologies, but rather got them from Jesus himself. Where else would you get his geneology?

Even if these geneologies should not be taken literal (which there is no reason not to), it shows conclusively that the hebrews thought of Adam was a real person.

Also, on your claim that Pharisaic doctrine taught of a non-literal genesis. It is really hard for me to believe considering Paul was a pharisee and though he converted to christianity, his biblical studies were that of memorizing every word of the Tenach. To the point where he could speak the entire book without need of a manuscript. All through out Romans he declares Adam as a real person over and over and over. So now their are two options, none of which are in your favor:

A. When the Pharisees never believed a non-literal view of Genesis
B. They did believe a non-literal view, however after converting, through either what he learned from Jesus or what he learned from the 11, he came to believe that Adam was a real person that caused the fall.

 

[Critias]

If we are going to proof text, I could prove that dragons are real, God commands swinging, and after women give birth to sons they grow wings. The context of Mark 10 is marraige. Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of their existence.

Philo was Jewish. There are some very interesting quotes in On Allegory

I think stating the "context" is marriage is incorrect. The subject is marriage.