Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[TomZzyzx]

You're assumption that Moses wrote Genesis and that God intended Genesis 1 to be taken as historical-literal-scientific is just that: An assumption made by you.

For one thing, we can see by looking at the text itself that in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth there was already a formless earth where the primeval ocean existed.

For example the Hebrew verb bara' translated as "created" means something more like "filled" and is related to the Hebrew verb for "fattened". Genesis 1:1 is an introductory statement for the proceeding statements, it proclaims that God is going to form, shape, fill up the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:2, speaking of the already-existing earth that it was a formless wasteland. Why? Because God had not yet acted to fill it with the abundance that would come. Also present is a primeval ocean, the tehowm, the deep abyssal waters (this corresponds with the primeval ocean Tiamut from other ANE mythologies, only here it is de-personified to describe God's Absolute Sovereignty). For the Breath or Wind of God blew across the surface, God alone is Present here, there are no other beings.

It isn't until Genesis 1:3 that God begins His act of creating or filling/fattening up the heavens and the earth. Here the author posits several parallels Day 1/Day 4, Day 2/Day 5, Day 3/Day 6.

Light | Sun, Moon and Stars
Separation of Waters | Living things above and below
Dry Land | Beasts, creeping things and mankind

The parallels present the "spaces" fashioned in the heavens and the earth into which God may fill them with things to inhabit and rule them.

You're ignoring the intentional poetic parallelism of the text. A simple and legitimate examination of the text--regardless of if one is a YEC, OEC or TE--provides ample evidence of what the text is actually trying to say. Trying to force the text into a strict historical-scientific account is a betrayal of the text and is missing the entire point of what's being said here.

Theistic Evolutionists don't try and force the text into a paradigm of millions or billions of years. Rather most of us read the text honestly as it is a theological text and as such the usage of days provides a structured literary framework to provide the purposeful and structured account of God's ordering of the cosmos.

See my above statements.

No one in Moses' time believed the world encircled the sun or that germs were cause of disease and sickness. So that's a moot point. Also, the mentioning of six days in Exodus 20 and 31 does not determine that the text is to be read as a scientific accounting of the creation; it is rather a reference point. In Exodus 20 it forms part of a contextual reading addressing God's sovereignty and as forming a theological underpinning for the Sabbath and precedes the Decalogue; the same goes for Exodus 31. The use of the reference point is theological.

Because they formed an important narrative purpose in linking the Gospel Story to Israel's most ancient past. Whether there was an historical Enoch or Lamech or Noah or Methusalah and whether or not they lived for many centuries is entirely moot to the Evangelist's purposes.



We prefer to take the Bible as a living text that is worthy of respect and therefore shouldn't make modernist notions of wooden literalism as a given. The Bible is deserving of being taken seriously enough to understand what it's saying rather than forcing it to say things it's not really interested in saying.

I don't know of any Christian Theistic Evolutionist who denies the reality of the Fall, of Sin, and of our redemption from it all by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your argument here seems particularly flimsy. Is absolute knowledge concerning every little thing about such things as sin and death and when they exactly began and the like really necessary in order to confess the Gospel and the reality of Christ's redemptive work?

Of course not.

Thank you, and the Peace of God be with you.

-CryptoLutheran

According to my Lexicon "Bara" does not mean "filled", it means, to create, form, make, produce. The word Bara also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in Isa 43:1,Ezek 21:30; 28:13,15.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You're assumption that Moses wrote Genesis and that God intended Genesis 1 to be taken as historical-literal-scientific is just that: An assumption made by you.

There is no assumption. The events, occurrences, and characters of Genesis are historical fact as testified by the multiplicity of testimonies by the Lord Jesus Christ and all of the authors of the New Testament who mentioned creation, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Lamech, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, & his wife.

Try and quote one verse in the N.T. that was not treated as historical.

The Lord did not fail to communicate the truth of these things to us, but you have failed to believe Him.

 

[Keachian]

There is no assumption. The events, occurrences, and characters of Genesis are historical fact as testified by the multiplicity of testimonies by the Lord Jesus Christ and all of the authors of the New Testament who mentioned creation, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Lamech, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, & his wife.

Try and quote one verse in the N.T. that was not treated as historical.

The Lord did not fail to communicate the truth of these things to us, but you have failed to believe Him.

Whether they were treated as historical or not is regardless of the fact that they weren't used to teach history but rather theology. The favourite quote of Torah by creationists for proof is Jesus quoting Gen 2:24, which itself is expounding on the events to give us a theology of marriage, Jesus uses it in the same way to talk about marriage and divorce, whether he believed the surrounding passage as factual history is not mentioned in the text and trying to state that this theological verse is treated as an historical one is flying in the face of reason.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Whether they were treated as historical or not is regardless of the fact that they weren't used to teach history but rather theology. The favourite quote of Torah by creationists for proof is Jesus quoting Gen 2:24, which itself is expounding on the events to give us a theology of marriage, Jesus uses it in the same way to talk about marriage and divorce, whether he believed the surrounding passage as factual history is not mentioned in the text and trying to state that this theological verse is treated as an historical one is flying in the face of reason.

Good grief! Why don't you just tear Luke 3, Jesus family lineage establishing him as heir to the throne of David, out of your Bible (if you own one) and turn it in to a paper airplane and toss it out your window? If that's all the legitimacy that you give to God's holy Word as to His ultimate, scripture right to sit on Davids throne then please do so.

 

[Keachian]

Good grief! Why don't you just tear Luke 3, Jesus family lineage establishing him as heir to the throne of David, out of your Bible (if you own one) and turn it in to a paper airplane and toss it out your window? If that's all the legitimacy that you give to God's holy Word as to His ultimate, scripture right to sit on Davids throne then please do so.

Um... how does me realising Jesus is teaching theology based on a verse talking about theology mean I should tear out Luke 3? Also I own 10 bibles fyi.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Good grief! Why don't you just tear Luke 3, Jesus family lineage establishing him as heir to the throne of David, out of your Bible (if you own one) and turn it in to a paper airplane and toss it out your window? If that's all the legitimacy that you give to God's holy Word as to His ultimate, scripture right to sit on Davids throne then please do so.

What's wrong with the idea that Adam was a literal person - not the first human perhaps, but the first one to recieve a soul? Alternatively some believe Adam and patriarchs were not literal people but rather tribesmen or clans? This would not affect the genealogy of the Bible all that much, and would explain how a single 'person' could live almost a thousand years.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Strong's.

Lexicon

The verb describes fattening (as in making fat, filling a thing e.g. cattle), cutting, molding, forming, shaping, etc. The idea in Genesis 1:1 is that God is going to set about forming/fashioning/shaping/filling/fattening up the heavens and the earth. Which He does between days 1 through 6.

The text describes God's act of shaping, fattening, and/or forming the heavens and the earth. It's not describing the origin of the heavens and the earth itself, but treats these as already present "the earth was without form and void ..." and then God constructs, puts together, molds, cuts, shapes, fattens up them up by His creative activity and Divine Word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Um... how does me realising Jesus is teaching theology based on a verse talking about theology mean I should tear out Luke 3? Also I own 10 bibles fyi.

Are you kidding me?

Do you happen to be heir to any kind of an estate in the future? If so, would you not want your family lineage to be accurate if that were to somehow come into play in the execution of the will involved? What in the world?

You are either (1) very ignorant of the importance of legal documentation as it pertains to inheritance or (2) you are deliberately ignoring the import of this matter.

Jesus has a right to the throne of David (as testified in two places in the gospels, so the Holy Spirit must have thought it important) ONLY if those family lineages are legitimate, truthful, and historical.

The pharisees placed in question Jesus lineage, calling him 'born of fornication'...but those lineages (Matt. 1 & Luke 3) establish His background firmly. I am sorry that you take such things so lightly.

'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.' Isaiah 9:6,7

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is no assumption. The events, occurrences, and characters of Genesis are historical fact as testified by the multiplicity of testimonies by the Lord Jesus Christ and all of the authors of the New Testament who mentioned creation, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Lamech, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, & his wife.

Try and quote one verse in the N.T. that was not treated as historical.

The Lord did not fail to communicate the truth of these things to us, but you have failed to believe Him.

It seems like it'd be awfully difficult for Moses to write about his own death.

The uses of the New Testament references aren't there to say, "This is a literal, historic and scientific account so that people living in the 21st century can have a journalistic record of prehistory" But rather to give narrative context to teaching in regards to theology and ethics.

It's fundamentally no different then to rhetorically refer to Odysseus or Oedipus or Icarus. Referencing these figures does not necessitate their necessary historic existence--that would be missing the point altogether.

Jesus wasn't saying, "So and so actually lived in real history" that issue was irrelevant to what He was saying. His points had to do with reference markers offering a narrative context which His hearers could understand what He was saying. To say things will be "as it was in the days of Noah" and then focus all on "See, He said Noah, therefore Noah had to exist in real history!" is to miss entirely what it is that Jesus was talking about.

Same with St. Paul's use of Adam in Romans 5 and elsewhere.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Keachian]

Are you kidding me?

Do you happen to be heir to any kind of an estate in the future? If so, would you not want your family lineage to be accurate if that were to somehow come into play in the execution of the will involved? What in the world?

You are either (1) very ignorant of the importance of legal documentation as it pertains to inheritance or (2) you are deliberately ignoring the import of this matter.

Jesus has a right to the throne of David (as testified in two places in the gospels, so the Holy Spirit must have thought it important) ONLY if those family lineages are legitimate, truthful, and historical.

The pharisees placed in question Jesus lineage, calling him 'born of fornication'...but those lineages (Matt. 1 & Luke 3) establish His background firmly. I am sorry that you take such things so lightly.

'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.' Isaiah 9:6,7

I am not talking about either of the two genealogies, please address my point that Jesus quoted Gen 2:24 to teach a theology of marriage.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Strong's.

Lexicon

The verb describes fattening (as in making fat, filling a thing e.g. cattle), cutting, molding, forming, shaping, etc. The idea in Genesis 1:1 is that God is going to set about forming/fashioning/shaping/filling/fattening up the heavens and the earth. Which He does between days 1 through 6.

The text describes God's act of shaping, fattening, and/or forming the heavens and the earth. It's not describing the origin of the heavens and the earth itself, but treats these as already present "the earth was without form and void ..." and then God constructs, puts together, molds, cuts, shapes, fattens up them up by His creative activity and Divine Word.

-CryptoLutheran

That isn't true and you did not pay attention to the details in the OP.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

God did NOT take billions of years to make His creation. Why would He?

 

[Keachian]

God didn't take 6 days to make his creation, why would he?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That isn't true and you did not pay attention to the details in the OP.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

God did NOT take billions of years to make His creation. Why would He?

If you want to reject the Bible for what it's saying that's between you and the Lord.

The word 'asah is used in Psalm 33:6 translated as "made", it describes work, accomplishing, etc.

I don't think I've denied that God formed the heavens and the earth, I believe He did. In fact I believe even more than that, I believe that God created all things ex nihilo (though this isn't what Genesis 1:1 is talking about).

The timescale of the universe is irrelevant here. You appear to be making a value judgment concerning timescales, as though if the universe were billions of years old it somehow reflects poorly on God's creative act. If that isn't your implication then correct me. But if it is your implication then that argument can be taken further.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

God did NOT take billions of years to make His creation. Why would He?

On second thought, perhaps the better question in response to this is, why wouldn't He?

What's wrong with a ~14 billion year old universe, what makes it qualitatively inferior to a 6,000 year old universe? And if it is, wouldn't a five minute year old universe be superior to a 6,000 year old one?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kirkwhisper]

If you want to reject the Bible for what it's saying that's between you and the Lord.

The word 'asah is used in Psalm 33:6 translated as "made", it describes work, accomplishing, etc.

I don't think I've denied that God formed the heavens and the earth, I believe He did. In fact I believe even more than that, I believe that God created all things ex nihilo (though this isn't what Genesis 1:1 is talking about).

-CryptoLutheran

Ex Nihilo is EXACTLY what God was telling us and you are deliberately twisting scripture in order to push the error that the universe is billions of yrs. old.

Another point you missed....big time....: the chronologies. You see IF Jesus family lineage in Luke 3 is correct then the time frame of earths history CANNOT be millions or still less, billions of years in age. Why? Because his family lineage (established by Genesis, I Chronicles, & Luke 3) will not allow for a time frame longer than about 4,400 B.C. Understand that each of the authors of those lineages gave exactly the same twelve names as listed in Genesis and even if the translations do not yield all of the same names in later comparisons of the translations one still cannot derive an age of millions of years for earths history.

Thirdly, and this one requires some real thought: You said,

The word 'asah is used in Psalm 33:6 translated as "made", it describes work, accomplishing

So? The fact is that God FINISHED His creation at the end of the six day creation week and is no longer creating.

Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Your time frame just evaporated in the words of the very Creator Himself.

In stellar evolutionary terms, man did not arrive on the scene until about 1 1/2 to 2 million years ago so your time frame is all messed up.

Quit trying to stretch scripture to fit your chosen ideology.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ex Nihilo is EXACTLY what God was telling us and you are deliberately twisting scripture in order to push the error that the universe is billions of yrs. old.

The age of the earth is irrelevant as far as what the text is saying. I'm simply offering a meaningful understanding of the text for what it says rather than reading into the text what's not there.

Another point you missed....big time....: the chronologies. You see IF Jesus family lineage in Luke 3 is correct then the time frame of earths history CANNOT be millions or still less, billions of years in age. Why? Because his family lineage (established by Genesis, I Chronicles, & Luke 3) will not allow for a time frame longer than about 4,400 B.C. Understand that each of the authors of those lineages gave exactly the same names as listed in Genesis and even if the translations do not yield all of the same latter names one still cannot derive an age of millions of years for earths history.

So your contention is that Luke's genealogy demands a literal understanding of each person? Why exactly? Is that Luke's point? It seems to me that Luke is doing something far more important than just happening to be listing a series of "begots". Luke doesn't stop at Adam, Luke's genealogy goes all the way to God. Perhaps we should, again, be more concerned with what Luke is trying to say rather than impose ourselves upon the text in order to make our private ideology come out right.

Thirdly, and this one requires some real thought: You said,

So? The fact is that God FINISHED His creation at the end of the six day creation week and is no longer creating.

Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Your time frame just evaporated in the words of the very Creator Himself.

In stellar evolutionary terms, man did not arrive on the scene until about 1 1/2 to 2 million years ago so your time frame is all messed up.

Quit trying to stretch scripture to fit your chosen ideology.

I would counter with the same. Please stop stretching and twisting the Bible to conform to your chosen ideology. Let Scripture speak for itself, it's God's word and deserves that respect.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mathetes123]

God didn't take 6 days to make his creation, why would he?

I would suggest you read Genesis, Chapter 1.

How many days are in a week? Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I would suggest you read Genesis, Chapter 1.

How many days are in a week? Why do you suppose that is?

Poor thing. He hasn't got a clue.

 

[Assyrian]

Um... how does me realising Jesus is teaching theology based on a verse talking about theology mean I should tear out Luke 3? Also I own 10 bibles fyi.

Are you kidding me?

Do you happen to be heir to any kind of an estate in the future? If so, would you not want your family lineage to be accurate if that were to somehow come into play in the execution of the will involved? What in the world?

You are either (1) very ignorant of the importance of legal documentation as it pertains to inheritance or (2) you are deliberately ignoring the import of this matter.

Jesus has a right to the throne of David (as testified in two places in the gospels, so the Holy Spirit must have thought it important) ONLY if those family lineages are legitimate, truthful, and historical.

The pharisees placed in question Jesus lineage, calling him 'born of fornication'...but those lineages (Matt. 1 & Luke 3) establish His background firmly. I am sorry that you take such things so lightly.

'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.' Isaiah 9:6,7

So what does that have to do with Jesus quoting Genesis 2:24 to teach theology? No amount of bluster will make up for being unable to answer progmonk's point and trying to change the subject instead.

 

[mathetes123]

Ex Nihilo is EXACTLY what God was telling us and you are deliberately twisting scripture in order to push the error that the universe is billions of yrs. old.

Another point you missed....big time....: the chronologies. You see IF Jesus family lineage in Luke 3 is correct then the time frame of earths history CANNOT be millions or still less, billions of years in age. Why? Because his family lineage (established by Genesis, I Chronicles, & Luke 3) will not allow for a time frame longer than about 4,400 B.C. Understand that each of the authors of those lineages gave exactly the same twelve names as listed in Genesis and even if the translations do not yield all of the same names in later comparisons of the translations one still cannot derive an age of millions of years for earths history.

Thirdly, and this one requires some real thought: You said,



So? The fact is that God FINISHED His creation at the end of the six day creation week and is no longer creating.

Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Your time frame just evaporated in the words of the very Creator Himself.

In stellar evolutionary terms, man did not arrive on the scene until about 1 1/2 to 2 million years ago so your time frame is all messed up.

Quit trying to stretch scripture to fit your chosen ideology.

Exactly! The whole point of listing the chronologies is to establish Jesus' identity and rightful claim as the Christ. If ancestors were left out of the list, the chain would be broken, and the legal claim would be null and void.