Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing Evolution.

Ismhunter

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them. Creationists who feel enraged/upset/movedtowrite - please put questions to us rather than get mad if you can at all and dont hesitate to give us your questions as it is those very questions after all that we need.

Thanks

BrianCalgary

A good journey to be on.
I hold to the 6 day literal interpretation of Genesis, for the reasons that you have cited above. Primaraly death. I'm aslo not that big on Calvin.

I have a dear friend who holds to evolution and tries to set out Genesis with the fossil record. I give my Sunday School my side of the argument and then he gives his side.

the point we get across is that it is possible to be Christian and hold either view. We also say that the first guy in Heaven gets God to reveal how it was, the next guy either gets a raspberry or a bow.

It is unfortuante that some evangelists get all hung up on the subject and treat it as though salvation depends on which way you interpret Genesis. I find that too many American evengelicals get their knickers in a twist over such secondary issues.

AtomicHorror

Ismhunter wrote: »

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them. Creationists who feel enraged/upset/movedtowrite - please put questions to us rather than get mad if you can at all and dont hesitate to give us your questions as it is those very questions after all that we need.

Thanks

Wouldn't worry about them getting mad as such, but the thread could end up as another creationism debate. That said, it would be really interesting to hear how conservative and moderate Christians reconcile the Bible with modern science. Could be a really interesting thread, so long as it doesn't turn into a copy of the BC&P thread!

Obviously as an atheist I can't comment on the reconciliation part, but if you don't mind the odd interjection I can give some input on the science element. No good trying to reconcile the Bible with a straw man, after all.

Out of interest, is there any data out there on the proportion of conservatives/evangelicals etc. who accept some form of evolution?

Turtwig

The vast amount of Christian theologians believe in evolution and have reconciled it with pure ease. In fact, let's be honest here, it was well know before Darwin even came along that Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally*
I'm going to wait and see if a Christian will make this argument.
If not an atheist will do his best to show how biblical interpretation of the bible don't really conflict with evolution.


* The bible is a literary text consisting of a plethora of different genres, it obviously wasn't meant to be taken as a scientific text and to be honest bar some powerful establishments this was well known and well accepted. When the archbishop of Armagh (?) calculated the exact age of the Earth from the bible, the majority of theologians and the scientists were almost certain he was wrong.

Zombrex

I'm an atheist so I don't have a whole lot to contribute to this thread but I possibly think the thread should be

Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing in modern scientific theory

since issues with literal reading of Genesis, as Creationists do, conflict with pretty much the entire body of current scientific understanding, everything from theories like the Big Bang to all modern geology, to atomic theory.

Evolution has become the whipping boy of the Creationist movement, but there are so many other scientific theories that would have to be abandoned if Literal Creationism was true.

Just a point to keep in mind. Last I'll say on the matter, hope the thread goes well. The Creationists have dominated this forum for a while, mostly because the majority of regular posters don't seem to care that much about science either way, so it would be nice to see a balance returned with people saying that they positively embrace an understanding of modern science while still remaining Christians.

Fanny Cradock

Mod Hat On

Anyone posting opinions better suited to the B,C&P thread will have their posts deleted. I'm going to be running a tight ship on this one, so please stick to the topic.

Mod Hat Off

BrianCalgary

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Mod Hat On

Anyone posting opinions better suited to the B,C&P thread will have their posts deleted. I'm going to be running a tight ship on this one, so please stick to the topic.

Mod Hat Off

Good Luck. :pac:

Fanny Cradock

OP, may I suggest that you do some reading and downloading! Here are a few that spring to mind.

Talk by Earnest Lucas on Genesis 1 - 3. (Many more lectures and papers to be found Faraday Institute (link to audio section of website))

Biologos (Francis Collins' attempt to promote the understanding of theistic evolution amongst certain Christians)

Theistic evolution（Wiki article)

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Mod Hat On

Anyone posting opinions better suited to the B,C&P thread will have their posts deleted. I'm going to be running a tight ship on this one, so please stick to the topic.

Mod Hat Off

Yessir!

Fanny Cradock

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A good journey to be on.
I hold to the 6 day literal interpretation of Genesis

If you have an hour I would be interested in hearing what you think about the audio link I posted.

Ingenuist

religion is for people who cant accept were here for no particular reason, evolution is proof that most religions are a lie and so evolution is not accepted, no offence to anyone.

Fanny Cradock

Is it just me, or are we seeing an upsurge in these type of dogmatic posts lately?

Ingenuist wrote: »

religion is for people who cant accept were here for no particular reason, evolution is proof that most religions are a lie and so evolution is not accepted, no offence to anyone.

Ignoring your painfully oversimplified faith-statement about the motivations for belief in God (sometimes people just believe, you know), how exactly is evolution proof that most religions are a lie?

If you can't provide an answer, I strongly suggest that you keep such contentions opinions off this forum and, instead, present them to people who will readily agree with your anti-theistic claptrap. No offence!

Interestingly, if one insists that evolution is both a scientific theory and an atheistic theology (for want of a better word), I wonder what the ramifications would be under the current legal framework in somewhere like the US? Presumably there would be some serious legal challenges to evolution being taught in schools. I dare say that claims of "indoctrination" would be fired left, right and centre, which would be ironic considering the focus it often has nowadays.

Read the charter, Ingenuist.

Anyway, not being one to derail a thread :P, back on topic!

PDN

Ismhunter wrote: »

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

Good question! And, like Fanny Cradock, I will be keeping my beady mod eyes on this thread to ensure we discuss the questions in the OP rather than going down the road of discussing whether Creationism is true or not.

There are a great many Christians who believe in evolution and also in the inspiration (even the inerrancy) of the Bible. The guy who wrote the classic textbook on biblical inerrancy (BB Warfield - The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture) was one such person.

The Bible contains many kinds of literature including poetry, parables and metaphors, and historical narrative. Belief in the inspiration of the Bible involves recognising which is which, and not treating everything as historical narrative. For example, when Jesus describes Himself as the 'True Vine' nobody takes that strictly literally - we understand it is a metaphor. Equally, the resurrection accounts are clearly historical narrative - you would need to be an absolute moron, and ignore everything we know about First Century literature and culture, to argue that they were intended to be understood any other way (whether people actually believe the historical narrative to be true, of course, is another issue entirely).

The examples I've just given are the obvious ones - there are other Biblical passages where sincere readers of the Scripture disagree as to how they were intended to be interpreted by the authors. The further back you go in time, and the more alien the culture, then the chances of such ambiguity increase. Obviously the opening chapters of Genesis, being furthest away from us in terms of time and culture, have the potential to be misunderstood more than others.

We do know that the Bible contains extended parables and metaphors. For example, the entire Chapter 23 of Exekiel speaks about two adulterous sisters who are clearly not literal people but represent Jerusalem and Samaria. Others see the Song of Solomon as being such an extended parable and speaking of God's relationship with His people (I personally think its more of a damn good Jewish sex manual - but I digress).

Many biblical scholars, entirely separate from any scientific theories, see the first few Chapters of Genesis as bearing all the literary hallmarks of an extended parable or metaphor. Some apply this to the first 3 Chapters, others to the first 11 Chapters - up to the call of Abraham. By this reading, the early Chapters of Genesis teach important truths by using metaphors to present a picture of God as a monotheistic Creator which stands in stark contrast to the creation myths of other Middle Eastern peoples.

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them.

Good idea, but since I have the power I will also zap them with my mod stick!

Ismhunter

Hi lads. Op here.

Brian: you said "I hold to the 6 day literal interpretation of Genesis, for the reasons that you have cited above. Primaraly death" I dont understand could you explain?

Atomic: i have not heard of any stats on christians who are pro-evolution to some degree, but i did hear that quite a lot of evangelicals in the states hold to creationism. That said most (if not all) surveys of chrisitians in the states that are widely known are done by the Barna foundation and their definition of evangelical is so broad that anyone who likes(!) the bible could call themselves one. Thats an aside .. to me such a fact only shows that there seems to be a folk popularity behind creationism.. (my father for instance no evangelical himself nor bible lover of any shape or kind refuses to believe in evolution or dinosaurs!!)
I will say that as PDN says in christian academia there seems to be a consensus on thinking that the world is millions of years old and somehow evolution has got us to where we are. That "somehow" is the reason for this thread.

Fanny: thanks for the links and i will get back to ye on them .

A couple of things :

It seems an answer im getting back is "to be aware of different kinds of literature" This is good stuff. Gen 1 is poetry right? I'm no Hebrew scholar but it seems like turgid stuff if tis.

I was thought in a class that the original idea behind Gen 1 was to show God in a different light to ideas that prevailed about god in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Anyone got anymore details bout what these ideas where and how Gen 1 counters them.

Clearly Jesus is talking literally when he calls himself the "true vine" but maybe thats a metaphor thats easy to spot, any better examples of places where taking the words literally is plain wrong exegisis (how do you spell that) The two girls from ezekiel is a great example.

Why wouldnt he Just create it in six days..like why would he use evoltuion over millions of years to get the Job done? What was the point of that.?

the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory dont sit well with me. Where is God in a system that is about the strongest and fittest forging ahead to the detriement of others? there is no love in evolution.

Paul, in Rom 5:12 (niv) Says " therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin and in this way death came to all men because all sinned" Whilst we might have a way of understanding death before the fall as wholesome event and indeed a looked-forward too part of life that became wicked after the fall i think this verse is pretty unambigous on the need for Adam to have existed. whay say ye?


lastly i realise that we could probably very well just go and google this whole disussion but id rather chew it out with each other rather than just send each other a whole heap of links and files.
Happy hunting amigos!

santing

As a Creationist there are many reasons why I believe in creation, the first one being that I met the Creator...
You would need to give very good answers on the following questions:

• Is God the author of the Bible, or is the Bible a collection of books of people with a relationship with God?
• When the Lord Jesus talks about Adam & Eve (Matthew 19) as created beings and quotes Gen 1, is He just confirming a popular myth and therefore not completely honest (since He is the Creator He knew better)?
• If we do not accept Genesis 1 & 2 as facts, what do we do with Genesis 3. Is this also just an attempt of religious man to describe how evil came into this world?
• If we set aside the creation story, do we think that there was a moment when "Everything was very good"
• Genesis 1-3 are strong pillars in soteriology. Without Genesis 1-3 we need to redefine the source of evil, the need of a saviour, original sin, marriage, male/female relationship
• If we set aside the creation story, do we think there was one couple from whom all mankind descends?
• If we set aside the creation story, when did God reveal Himself first to his evolution?
• Are Angels evolving?
• When the Lord Jesus ancestry is traced back to Adam (Luke 3) is this just a popular myth of those days?
• Do you expect life on other planets?

When we have answered all this, do we think that Science is agreeing with our faith?

Zombrex

Ismhunter wrote: »

the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory dont sit well with me. Where is God in a system that is about the strongest and fittest forging ahead to the detriement of others? there is no love in evolution.

It is not necessarily the strongest that "forge ahead" in evolution, but the most adapted to the environment, and that can often mean the evolution of emotions, social partnerships and even altruism.

From an evolutionary point of view the only thing that is happening is that individuals live long enough for their genes to survive, and nature is finding the best way available for this to happen.

But to achieve this nature has come up with some very interesting systems that are far removed from the harsh bullish view a lot of people have of evolution, where the poor weak (and often very cute :pac:) animals are sacrificed at the alter of evolution so the big powerful animals can survive and evolve. It is a dog eat dog world except when the dogs all evolve a cooperative commune and find out they all last a lot longer that way :pac:

A good example of this are humans, who have a whole range of evolved instincts designed around helping others. But you see this in other animals as well.

Now I'm an atheist, so I don't believe there is a creator god behind this process.

But if someone did it is not a huge leap to see nature coming up with these systems as really God coming up with these systems through nature. I'm not saying that resolves all the issues. You are still left with death and the notion that animals compete with each other for resources including each other.

But then Genesis describes Adam tending to his garden in Eden before the Fall, so even with a literal view of the Bible it seems that there has always a notion of resources that included food, and food by its very nature requires death.

Hope this isn't considered off topic, it isn't a justification of evolution over creationism, simply a point that the harsh nature of evolution the general public have is some what inaccurate and actual evolution can produce systems closer to the values we as humans hold important.

Morbert

Ismhunter wrote: »

the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory dont sit well with me. Where is God in a system that is about the strongest and fittest forging ahead to the detriement of others? there is no love in evolution.

But the same objection could be raised against the six day creation account: In both scenarios, animals are destroyed even though they do not sin.

From what I know about contemporary Christianity, it holds that death is the natural consequence of things that do not know God. Animals naturally die. Man was created to live forever with God, but invited death through sin.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

It seems an answer im getting back is "to be aware of different kinds of literature" This is good stuff. Gen 1 is poetry right? I'm no Hebrew scholar but it seems like turgid stuff if tis.

Well, Genesis is an historic book. The notion to have Genesis 1 reclassified as poetry is imho only driven by the need of Theistic Evolution. However, you then have Genesis 2, and to a lesser extend Genesis 3-5 to deal with. I can't see how you could classify Genesis 2 as poetry.

Ismhunter wrote: »

I was thought in a class that the original idea behind Gen 1 was to show God in a different light to ideas that prevailed about god in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Anyone got anymore details bout what these ideas where and how Gen 1 counters them.

So you put Genesis 1 in a human attempt to describe God? How does that fit with inerrancy of the Bible?

Ismhunter wrote: »

Why wouldnt he Just create it in six days..like why would he use evoltuion over millions of years to get the Job done? What was the point of that.?

I think more importantly, as Moses was acquainted with Egypt Mythology, why would he (/He) compress the huge time frame of the scientists of his day into 7 days. And more importantly, why would it become part of Gods Word, when it is obviously not true?

Ismhunter wrote: »

the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory dont sit well with me. Where is God in a system that is about the strongest and fittest forging ahead to the detriement of others? there is no love in evolution.

It is imho not just the Philosphy of evolution that is the problem. Unless you define a moment in which God infused a soul into mankind, you have reduce all human aspects (morals, historic aspects, social aspects, psychological aspects, economic aspects etc.) to plain physics.

Ismhunter wrote: »

Paul, in Rom 5:12 (niv) Says " therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin and in this way death came to all men because all sinned" Whilst we might have a way of understanding death before the fall as wholesome event and indeed a looked-forward too part of life that became wicked after the fall i think this verse is pretty unambigous on the need for Adam to have existed. whay say ye?

I would strongly agree here. The worldview of Paul (and the whole Bible) is very strongly build on the need of Creation, Fall and Salvation. The three go together and if you remove one you have a hard job establishing the others.

Ismhunter

santing : Good man for getting the ball rolling.

I'll say a couple of quick things.
A. i too have met the creator.
on your point 1. I dont see the revelance of the question???
" " "" 2. For starters i would have no problem believeing in Adam and Eve, thats what i want to work out here. but i think your statement is a problem that i have seen in most creationists even if Adam and Eve were not literal and Jesus was just using a story to make his point how would that mean that God was dishonest? It would only at the least mean that you dont know his reasons for not revealing the complete picture. btw Jesus is quoting Gen3 in Mat 19
" " " 3. A very good question. But most would take the first 3 as not literal. Im not so comfortable with that yet. I at least can see how Gen 1 is not literal. which of course causes problems and opens me to accusations of not being uniform.. here i stand!
" " " 4. I would say yes. Before the fall everything was very good. Your point?
" ' ' 5. Thats what this is about:)
" " " 6. I would say yes. why not. it makes logical sense...
" " " 7. Dont know
8. Dont know.. revelancy ?
9. I dont know but like i said i'll take adam and eve as being real people for now.
10. I can see how its possible Re: C.s lewis prelandria trilogy where the main guy goes to another planet and meets creatures who havent fallen and worship God. They refer to earth as the silent planet.

Thanks

Morbert

santing wrote: »

As a Creationist there are many reasons why I believe in creation, the first one being that I met the Creator...
You would need to give very good answers on the following questions:

• Is God the author of the Bible, or is the Bible a collection of books of people with a relationship with God?
• When the Lord Jesus talks about Adam & Eve (Matthew 19) as created beings and quotes Gen 1, is He just confirming a popular myth and therefore not completely honest (since He is the Creator He knew better)?
• If we do not accept Genesis 1 & 2 as facts, what do we do with Genesis 3. Is this also just an attempt of religious man to describe how evil came into this world?
• If we set aside the creation story, do we think that there was a moment when "Everything was very good"
• Genesis 1-3 are strong pillars in soteriology. Without Genesis 1-3 we need to redefine the source of evil, the need of a saviour, original sin, marriage, male/female relationship
• If we set aside the creation story, do we think there was one couple from whom all mankind descends?
• If we set aside the creation story, when did God reveal Himself first to his evolution?
• Are Angels evolving?
• When the Lord Jesus ancestry is traced back to Adam (Luke 3) is this just a popular myth of those days?
• Do you expect life on other planets?

When we have answered all this, do we think that Science is agreeing with our faith?

These are very good questions. Christians should explore these questions, (and many have done so). What they shouldn't do is take an "ends justify the means" approach, and masquerade their theological objections to evolution as scientific ones in the hope that it will be more effective.

Ismhunter

Originally Posted by Ismhunter
I was thought in a class that the original idea behind Gen 1 was to show God in a different light to ideas that prevailed about god in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Anyone got anymore details bout what these ideas where and how Gen 1 counters them.

So you put Genesis 1 in a human attempt to describe God? How does that fit with inerrancy of the Bible?


I dont see how you can describe what i learnt in class as a human attempt to describe God. I learnt that it was God teaching us how He was very different from what they thought of were the attributes of God.

What is this about Moses and Egytpian mythology? Ive never heard this.

AtomicHorror

Ingenuist wrote: »

religion is for people who cant accept were here for no particular reason, evolution is proof that most religions are a lie and so evolution is not accepted, no offence to anyone.

Pretty off topic there fella.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

on your point 1. I dont see the revelance of the question???

Its the fundamental question... If we accept the Bible as God's Word, without error, as a book given to us by Him, than that gives us a basis to work with. If however, we decide that the Bible is human work with cultural limitations, than we don't have much to base our discussion on.

Ismhunter wrote: »

2. For starters i would have no problem believeing in Adam and Eve, thats what i want to work out here. but i think your statement is a problem that i have seen in most creationists even if Adam and Eve were not literal and Jesus was just using a story to make his point how would that mean that God was dishonest? It would only at the least mean that you dont know his reasons for not revealing the complete picture. btw Jesus is quoting Gen3 in Mat 19

The first part I address under 6. In Matthew 19 the Lord Jesus quotes from Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24. He could have used other portions of Scripture, but He choose these in such a way that we only can conclude that He believed these stories and found them of importance. He used them to instruct us on mariage. It at least becomes a "problem" verse if we take the Theistic Evolution route, because at least it was not "in the beginning" and the word "create" is dubious in that context.

Ismhunter wrote: »

3. A very good question. But most would take the first 3 as not literal. Im not so comfortable with that yet. I at least can see how Gen 1 is not literal. which of course causes problems and opens me to accusations of not being uniform.. here i stand!

This goes back to point 1. Are we accepting God's Word or not? We do not have any other reason to doubt the historic value of Genesis 2 and 3 - which clearly are written as historic writings - than science. If because of science we drop the reliability of a portion of Scripture, we state that we have a higher authority than Scripture to live by.

Ismhunter wrote: »

4. I would say yes. Before the fall everything was very good. Your point?

We know that the consequences of the Fall not just related to the first couple, but to the whole creation. Genesis 3 pictures the Fall as a global "natural" disaster that changed species like thorns and thistles and brought suffering and ultimate death. Now we could of course take the word "death" as meaning spiritual death, as it is used in say Ephesians 2, but it still leave us with a moment in time where we seek God's intervention. Taking into account the magnitude of this disaster, it must be something that is traceable through science.

Ismhunter wrote: »

5. Thats what this is about:)

Agree - and I think the list will grow when we go along!

Ismhunter wrote: »

6. I would say yes. why not. it makes logical sense...

It will be difficult to come up with a first human couple - descendents of non humans (nearly nearly human) without stipulating a direct intervention from God. (and science doesn't like interventions from God!)

Ismhunter wrote: »

7. Dont know
8. Dont know.. revelancy ?

Well, just curious. Why change the story for only one part of creation? I like consistency.

Ismhunter wrote: »

9. I dont know but like i said i'll take adam and eve as being real people for now.

OK, another question than, would you agree with the timeline for Adam and Eve as indicated by the Lord's ancestry. (I.e. thousands of years, not millions of years ago.)

Ismhunter wrote: »

10. I can see how its possible Re: C.s lewis prelandria trilogy where the main guy goes to another planet and meets creatures who havent fallen and worship God. They refer to earth as the silent planet.

I have read this trilogy with great enjoyment. I've never looked at the books as a promotion of life on other planets though. But I think my question doesn't really bear much consequence as the Bible doesn't talk about other planets, let alone about life on other planets.

AtomicHorror

Ismhunter wrote: »

Atomic: i have not heard of any stats on christians who are pro-evolution to some degree, but i did hear that quite a lot of evangelicals in the states hold to creationism. That said most (if not all) surveys of chrisitians in the states that are widely known are done by the Barna foundation and their definition of evangelical is so broad that anyone who likes(!) the bible could call themselves one. Thats an aside .. to me such a fact only shows that there seems to be a folk popularity behind creationism.. (my father for instance no evangelical himself nor bible lover of any shape or kind refuses to believe in evolution or dinosaurs!!)

Yeah, I think there was a recent survey in the UK which showed a similar trend- "folk popularity" of a sort. Perhaps ignorance of the official stance of various denominations or a growing general scepticism towards science. If anyone does have some solid numbers I'd be really interested in seeing them.

PDN, good post. Out of interest what's your position on evolution these days? If a member of your congregation were to ask you whether you thought evolution was compatible with your faith or if it were correct, what would you say? Last time I asked you seemed to be on the fence and I sense a certain reluctance to be specific about it now.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ismhunter
I was thought in a class that the original idea behind Gen 1 was to show God in a different light to ideas that prevailed about god in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Anyone got anymore details bout what these ideas where and how Gen 1 counters them.

So you put Genesis 1 in a human attempt to describe God? How does that fit with inerrancy of the Bible?


I dont see how you can describe what i learnt in class as a human attempt to describe God. I learnt that it was God teaching us how He was very different from what they thought of were the attributes of God.

Ok, sorry for jumping too quickly to conclusions! It opens the question though, if God is teaching us here, how would you summarise the intended lesson of Genesis 1-3? How would you classify the writing style? If you say a "parable" than I would counter that a parable always has an historic incident at its core... Poetry can of course dramatise, but again there is always a strong historic incident at its core.

What is this about Moses and Egytpian mythology? Ive never heard this.

I presume you agree that Moses was instrumental in composing/writing Genesis. A summary of the Egyptian mythology from http://www.touregypt.net/gods1.htm (emphasis mine)

To understand the Myth of Creation, one must first understand that it is a complicated story. Four "cosmologies," or theories about creation are involved, each developing over different periods in ancient Egypt. There are some common elements to each theory. For example, each theory holds that in the beginning, only a primordial, stagnant ocean called Nu existed. In addition, the four theories agree that out of Nu, rose the primeval hill. Each cosmology believed it was their temple that stood on this hill. The first step-pyramids are no doubt symbolic of this mound. All cosmologies share the belief that creation was a slow process, not catastrophic. Finally, they also all agree that there was a "First Time," or a time period when the gods actually lived on earth.

Zillah

What's really going to bake your noodle is the question of when humanity got a soul? If we evolved from animals, which do not have souls, then there must have been a point at which the soul was added. So you end up with the rather uncomfortable scenario where the first human being is born with a soul, to parents that are technically animals, who don't have souls, but for all intents and purposes are biologically and mentally identical.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

What's really going to bake your noodle is the question of when humanity got a soul? If we evolved from animals, which do not have souls, then there must have been a point at which the soul was added. So you end up with the rather uncomfortable scenario where the first human being is born with a soul, to parents that are technically animals, who don't have souls, but for all intents and purposes are biologically and mentally identical.

I think you're probably thinking of the spirit rather than of the soul. Nowhere does the Bible say that animals lack souls - quite the contrary in fact.

Those who believe in theistic evolution would often suggest that there must have been a 'first couple' within whom God breathed a spirit. They may well be viewed as Adam and Eve - thus you have evolutionists who believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Without this spirit their parents would be nothing more than highly developed apes with an ability to talk and think a bit better than other apes.

In fact, according to the Bible, most human beings live their life functionally without a spirit, since our spirits are dead in transgressions and sins until we come to faith in Christ.

Hope that doesn't 'bake your noodle'.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Those who believe in theistic evolution would often suggest that there must have been a 'first couple' within whom God breathed a spirit. They may well be viewed as Adam and Eve - thus you have evolutionists who believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Without this spirit their parents would be nothing more than highly developed apes with an ability to talk and think a bit better than other apes.

You know what I'm referring to, lets not quible over semantics. So this couple, were they given their spirit at conception or during their lives, before they conceived?

santing

Zillah wrote: »

You know what I'm referring to, lets not quible over semantics. So this couple, were they given their spirit at conception or during their lives, before they conceived?

They got it at the same moment as they became human, as this is something that sets us apart from animals. Now since it isn't something that could be inherited from their ancestors, and since it is something they would transfer to their offspring, this must have happened through a direct action from God. This direct intervention did change them completely, although their physical aspects (including genes) did not change, I would propose we call this the creation moment of mankind (in Theistic Evolution).
[As a creationist I think their first thought must have been: "Well God, you could have done this so much easier"]

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OP, may I suggest that you do some reading and downloading! Here are a few that spring to mind.

Talk by Earnest Lucas on Genesis 1 - 3. (Many more lectures and papers to be found Faraday Institute (link to audio section of website))

Biologos (Francis Collins' attempt to promote the understanding of theistic evolution amongst certain Christians)

Theistic evolution（Wiki article)

Why call it 'theistic evolution'? Does prepending the word 'theistic' make any scientific difference to the theory? I've not seen anything to suggest it does. Is it, then, just a rebranding for people who are suspicious that evolution might be a bit too atheist for them?

I'm all for people - religious and otherwise - embracing science, but I see this conflation of theology and scientific theory as woolly thinking. Scientific theories don't make reference to gods because it doesn't help to go including the unspecified and unnecessary. That doesn't, though, mean that the theories exclude the possibility of gods. That's why I see no more need for 'theistic evolution' than for 'theistic relativity' or the 'theistic big bang'.

.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

You know what I'm referring to, lets not quible over semantics. So this couple, were they given their spirit at conception or during their lives, before they conceived?

Nobody's quibbling over semantics. I was answering your post.

As for when they were given their spirit, who knows? That information is not given to us.

Morbert

santing wrote: »

[As a creationist I think their first thought must have been: "Well God, you could have done this so much easier"]

Why would it have been easier?

Why call it 'theistic evolution'? Does appending the word 'theistic' make any scientific difference to the theory? I've not seen anything to suggest it does. Is it, then, just a rebranding for people who are suspicious that evolution might be a bit too atheist for them?

It is a little misleading but ultimately a good stance for a Christian to take. Theistic evolutionists fully accept all of evolution (They don't believe God tweaked any of our genes or anything like that.) They simply believe that evolution, like all of creation, serves God's purposes.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

As for when they were given their spirit, who knows? That information is not given to us.

I must say, despite our differences I do admire your willingness to admit when something is not known to us, as opposed to the religious propensity for assuming an answer.

It baffles me that you can accept these inconsistencies while still maintaining belief in the general explanation, however, but that's a different matter.

darjeeling

Morbert wrote: »

Theistic evolutionists fully accept all of evolution (They don't believe God tweaked any of our genes or anything like that.) They simply believe that evolution, like all of creation, serves God's purposes.

I think 'theistic evolution' covers a spectrum of belief from straight-up evolution with God looking on approvingly as His plans come to fruition, to a sort of ID-lite, where God occasionally nudges something on track, though no-one's prepared to say when, how or what.

JimiTime

darjeeling wrote: »

I think 'theistic evolution' covers a spectrum of belief from straight-up evolution with God looking on approvingly as His plans come to fruition, to a sort of ID-lite, where God occasionally nudges something on track, though no-one's prepared to say when, how or what.

I don't think its meant to Give creation a science twist, but rather its a term to set oneself apart from genesis literalists. The term does not infer anything from a science view, but rather infers science upon the theological view.

BTW, I like the fact that this thread is allowed continue without being spanked into 'THE MEGA THREAD'. Its a good topic, but once it goes in 'THERE', it just becomes inaudible with all the noise and I ignore. Reconciling evolution with references to Jesus being the second Adam, and The fall etc is a good topic that I think should be discussed without it constantly being pushed into the bin. I.E. The mega thread.

darjeeling

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think its meant to Give creation a science twist, but rather its a term to set oneself apart from genesis literalists. The term does not infer anything from a science view, but rather infers science upon the theological view.

'Christians who accept evolution' - or as Wicknight says above 'Christians who accept science' - would do that. 'Theistic evolution' implies the existence of 'atheistic evolution', both of which would be unhelpful and potentially misleading conflations of science and a theological position.

A separate point (not connected with your post JT) is the issue of how an active, engaged - er, theistic! - creator squares with an essentially passive, on-looking role as apparently described by many Christians who have assimilated evolution into their theology.

From the BioLogos website (link):

BioLogos wrote:

BioLogos states that “once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity," and “humans are part of this process.” Moreover, “once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.”

So how is BioLogos reconciled with a theistic, interactive God instead of the disinterested God of deism?

[...]

BioLogos does not seek a concept of a God who is involved at certain times and who only observes at other times. In harmony with theism, BioLogos affirms a God who is at all times involved, yet who still allows a degree of freedom to the creation.

That's not an answer, it's an evasion. A God who 'is involved at certain times', yet who was not required to make any 'special supernatural intervention' in the whole evolution of life?

Evolution - and our understanding of the unfolding of the universe in general - would seem to me to be far more compatible with deism or pantheism than with Christianity.

lmaopml

Ismhunter wrote: »

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them. Creationists who feel enraged/upset/movedtowrite - please put questions to us rather than get mad if you can at all and dont hesitate to give us your questions as it is those very questions after all that we need.

Thanks

I can only answer for myself. I am a firm believer in evolution. I've studied, went to uni and worked in a field that has been (pre kiddies - and hopefully in a year or two again ) fascinating and leaves me in no doubt....I was an agnostic / atheist at the time....with this BIG huge ? over what exactly I believed, cause I didn't have a clue, and everybody seemed so bloody sure - I found out they aren't quite as sure as they come across, and decided to just 'live' and tbh, just enjoy it, and give in to the ????? I had.........

To answer the 'reconcile' question.....I don't! I would neither regard myself as 'Creationist' or 'Intelligent Design' or any other 'tag' that people try to fix to you. I'm just me, 'lmaopml', doing my thing, and finding my way and I'm more than happy....

..and as much as I thought I knew, I found out there is so much more I don't. So, without further ado I decided to get to know 'me' lol..... and now that I am quite content just living in peace with everybody around me and if at all possible rather than fight for a 'side' to fight for 'freedom' of expression and belief..

Ismhunter

Santing : thanks for all your respones so far. I am learning from you.
I want to zero in on one thing you said

You said "Its the fundamental question... If we accept the Bible as God's Word, without error, as a book given to us by Him, than that gives us a basis to work with. If however, we decide that the Bible is human work with cultural limitations, than we don't have much to base our discussion on."

This statement to me seems to be a the crux of the diffenrence of our opinions. time and time again i have met either creationist or fundementalists who start making claims that i see the bible as not inerrant or as a human book or as not God's words when it becomes apparent that i dont agree with them. I would like you to know here and now that i ABSOLUTELY agree that the Bible is God's word, innerrant in the original autographs and the only basis for which we can know God. This does not mean that we dont take in cultural considerations when we are interpretating it . Taking Genesis 123 or even to 11 as historical narrative is not the only way of reading it as far as i can see. Other parts of the bible are not taking literally when the so easily could be e.g. Do you kiss every brother or sister you meet with a holy kiss? Is the commuion bread actually Jesus' body and the communion drink his blood?

I would also counter argue that your agrument via Moses knowning Egyptian Mthyology's account of creation which was a slow process as not evidence that he was purposefully showing us the scientific truth of creation by going against the assumed knowledge as one could also point out that was simply ignoring assumed science because he was making a scientific treatise on how we came about and was instead utillising poetry to show characteristics of creation mankind and God that were incorrect in the egyptian view. Such as for instance that the world is not chaotic but rather that it was created Good.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

Santing : thanks for all your respones so far. I am learning from you.
I want to zero in on one thing you said

You said "Its the fundamental question... If we accept the Bible as God's Word, without error, as a book given to us by Him, than that gives us a basis to work with. If however, we decide that the Bible is human work with cultural limitations, than we don't have much to base our discussion on."

This statement to me seems to be a the crux of the diffenrence of our opinions. time and time again i have met either creationist or fundementalists who start making claims that i see the bible as not inerrant or as a human book or as not God's words when it becomes apparent that i dont agree with them. I would like you to know here and now that i ABSOLUTELY agree that the Bible is God's word, innerrant in the original autographs and the only basis for which we can know God. This does not mean that we dont take in cultural considerations when we are interpretating it . Taking Genesis 123 or even to 11 as historical narrative is not the only way of reading it as far as i can see. Other parts of the bible are not taking literally when the so easily could be e.g. Do you kiss every brother or sister you meet with a holy kiss? Is the commuion bread actually Jesus' body and the communion drink his blood?

Thanks for this clarification. It makes discussing this topic (or rather any topic) much easier knowing that we have the same base of authority. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I accused you of the opposite! I totally agree that there are various writing styles in the Bible, and also cultural considerations, however, it doesn't mean that we can ever say: "that was for that culture only," and act the opposite way. For instance, if I take your example of the "holy kiss," what we must learn from this is that (a) Christians have relationship amongst each other that is comparable to human families and (b) expressions of our warm love must be done in "holiness."
Since we have agreed on the base of authority, I would like to expand that a little further (which is not laying down an addtional rule, but explaining the agreed rule further:

The Bible is always sufficient for all matters of belief and practice.

Ismhunter wrote: »

I would also counter argue that your agrument via Moses knowning Egyptian Mthyology's account of creation which was a slow process as not evidence that he was purposefully showing us the scientific truth of creation by going against the assumed knowledge as one could also point out that was simply ignoring assumed science because he was making a scientific treatise on how we came about and was instead utillising poetry to show characteristics of creation mankind and God that were incorrect in the egyptian view. Such as for instance that the world is not chaotic but rather that it was created Good.

Moses did indeed not try to write down the scientific truth of creation, and in general I would doubt if anyone would day that the style of writing in any part of the Bible is "Scientific!" In Science the only time you use the word "Good" is after examining the knowledge of your students. I have problems though seeing the poetic side of Genesis 1. Poetry obeys rules, I don't see any rules of poetry in this chapter. If I compare Genesis 1 with say Psalm 89 (which speaks poeticallly about creation) I find a huge difference.

darjeeling

I think this essay by Laurence Moran on the relationship between science and religion is very good, and I agree entirely with what it says.

It explains why science has to be areligious (not irreligious, note), why it has to use 'methodological naturalism' - the starting assumption that the universe is governed by immutable laws that cannot be suspended by miraculous, supernatural intervention. I remember the writer Louis de Bernieres saying he gave up magical realism because it made plot writing too easy - you could drop the most fantastical ideas into your stories at whim. Similarly, if you tried to do non-naturalistic science, you could slot your own imagined miracles into your modelling wherever you wanted. Terrific! Except your explanations would be entirely arbitrary and of no practical use - in contrast to what naturalistic science has delivered.

Of course, science doesn't tell you that naturalism is the right assumption. Many people choose to believe that it is, given the remarkable success of the scientific project at understanding the universe by proceeding from this initial position. You can, though, choose to accept what the scientific method tells you about, say, evolution, while simultaneously believing that what actually happened was different, though inaccessible to science. Your critics may say this is a variant of 'Last Thursdayism', but you can live with that.

What I don't think is acceptable is to produce an unholy mishmash of science and religion, then pretend that it is science. 'Theistic evolution' - which gives God an (unspecified) active role in evolution - may or may not be true, but it cannot be science.

And if only everyone grasped this, then all of the apparent conflicts between science and religion would fall away!

And I think that's enough on TE from me for now.

santing

darjeeling wrote: »

I think this essay by Laurence Moran on the relationship between science and religion is very good, and I agree entirely with what it says.

It explains why science has to be areligious (not irreligious, note), why it has to use 'methodological naturalism' ...

What I don't think is acceptable is to produce an unholy mishmash of science and religion, then pretend that it is science. 'Theistic evolution' - which gives God an (unspecified) active role in evolution - may or may not be true, but it cannot be science.

And if only everyone grasped this, then all of the apparent conflicts between science and religion would fall away!

Hi Darjeeling,
During my first year at university I folllowed a course "what is science" which basically boiled down to the fact that there is no scientific answer to that qeustion, and that the answer has been frased differently by different philosphers in different times. The essay you referenced takes one view of science (be it a good definitin or not) and puts some of my university teachers (and probably me too) amongst the "intolerant religious extremists" - thank you.

In defence of Alvin Plantinga who is mainly attacted in that article, I would propose you read his article "Religion and Science" in which he discusses many answers on the questions "What is Science."

darjeeling wrote: »

And I think that's enough on TE from me for now.

I agree, let's keep the "What is Science" question out of this discussion.

darjeeling

santing wrote: »

The essay you referenced takes one view of science (be it a good definitin or not) and puts some of my university teachers (and probably me too) amongst the "intolerant religious extremists" - thank you.

The essay only refers generally to 'Christians who are opposed to science' as 'intolerant religious extremists' (I wouldn't necessarily use such stark terms myself). If you choose to label yourself as such, that is your choice, not the essay writer's and certainly not mine.

santing wrote: »

In defence of Alvin Plantinga who is mainly attacted in that article, I would propose you read his article "Religion and Science" in which he discusses many answers on the questions "What is Science."

I've had a read, but I found nothing to convince me. If you wanted to highlight anything in particular, then you might do so, as I did in my last post.

Anyway, as for allowing miracles as a causal mechanism in science - I'd love to know how it could be done in practice! Philosophers like Plantinga can blow smoke all they like; down on the bench, the people who actually do science do not entertain the possibility of miracles, because once you let them in then anything can be explained by an infinite number of equally plausible (or implausible?) alternative miraculous scenarios.

santing wrote: »

let's keep the "What is Science" question out of this discussion.

If you are asking how to reconcile evolution - a scientific theory - with Genesis, then I do think it is important that you look at what constitutes a scientific theory - in theory and in practice.

Morbert

santing wrote: »

I have problems though seeing the poetic side of Genesis 1. Poetry obeys rules, I don't see any rules of poetry in this chapter. If I compare Genesis 1 with say Psalm 89 (which speaks poeticallly about creation) I find a huge difference.

What about allegory? Illustrating truths through stories and metaphors is a common practise.

santing

Morbert wrote: »

What about allegory? Illustrating truths through stories and metaphors is a common practise.

The problem with allegory is that you can make an allegory out of anything - which has happened in the past with the Bible! Now of course there are many allegories in the Bible, but they are well defined, or beter said "easy to spot." Given that the theme of Genesis is historic, there is nothing that gives away that the first chapters are anything different.
I would (try to) adhere to the old old, safe and sane principle of "Sensum ne inferas, sed efferas" ("Do not carry a meaning into (the Scriptures) but draw it out of (the Scriptures)
Making Genesis 1 an allegory is a "reading into" rather than "drawing out"

lmaopml

darjeeling wrote: »

Why call it 'theistic evolution'? Does prepending the word 'theistic' make any scientific difference to the theory? I've not seen anything to suggest it does. Is it, then, just a rebranding for people who are suspicious that evolution might be a bit too atheist for them?

I'm all for people - religious and otherwise - embracing science, but I see this conflation of theology and scientific theory as woolly thinking. Scientific theories don't make reference to gods because it doesn't help to go including the unspecified and unnecessary. That doesn't, though, mean that the theories exclude the possibility of gods. That's why I see no more need for 'theistic evolution' than for 'theistic relativity' or the 'theistic big bang'.

.

Exactly! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Science and it's studies cannot allow for a 'God' to have 'done it all'...because, firstly it would undermine the unbiased reasearch, and secondly they are discovering - and in the business of finding out origins and future with regards to physical, and natural causes. That's why I love science..lol...It's not about the metaphysical...

However it's not a 'worldview'...to me...It's just a 'tool' if you like...

It's merely part of my worldview..but there is so much more....perhaps as a result of studying philosophy etc..which I believe is the bridge between the strictly scientific mind and the strictly religious mind...I believe philosophy is necessary..

However, I do recognise where you are coming from...and can appreciate that it can cause conflictions....It's just a case of pushing forward though and keeping it 'real' personally..The philosophers of ancient times and even today are still asking the questions which spurn on the quest...

..Wow!

Ismhunter

santing wrote: »

The problem with allegory is that you can make an allegory out of anything - which has happened in the past with the Bible! Now of course there are many allegories in the Bible, but they are well defined, or beter said "easy to spot." Given that the theme of Genesis is historic, there is nothing that gives away that the first chapters are anything different.
I would (try to) adhere to the old old, safe and sane principle of "Sensum ne inferas, sed efferas" ("Do not carry a meaning into (the Scriptures) but draw it out of (the Scriptures)
Making Genesis 1 an allegory is a "reading into" rather than "drawing out"

Sorry mate. but i think the same can and is said about how you are taking Gen1 to be historical. It would seem more likely to take it as non-literal and therefore more methaphorical. This is of course just personal taste. We would have to look at what makes a text historical or allegorical. Im off to find some time to listen to fanny's recomendations. Happy hunting cairde.

Sam Vimes

santing wrote: »

The problem with allegory is that you can make an allegory out of anything - which has happened in the past with the Bible! Now of course there are many allegories in the Bible, but they are well defined, or beter said "easy to spot." Given that the theme of Genesis is historic, there is nothing that gives away that the first chapters are anything different.

There could be said to be one thing that gives away that the first chapters aren't meant to be taken literally. That thing is that science has definitively proven that we evolved from lower life forms and did not originate with two fully formed humans in the garden of Eden

You're left with three options

1. Every scientist in the world is wrong. I say every scientist because there's no such thing as a creation scientist
2. The bible is wrong
3. You have interpreted the bible incorrectly

It's highly unlikely that every scientist in the world is wrong so if I were you I would find the most palletable option to be 3, you've interpreted it incorrectly. You're only human after all, you could update your understanding of the bible, come to understand your god better and end the situation where you have to say that the whole of human learning is wrong because it disagrees with your interpretation of the bible. Everybody's happy

wolfsbane

Ismhunter wrote: »

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them. Creationists who feel enraged/upset/movedtowrite - please put questions to us rather than get mad if you can at all and dont hesitate to give us your questions as it is those very questions after all that we need.

Thanks

Thank you for introducing this as a separate discussion from the Creation thread. It is an extremely important subject in itself, for all Christians. I'm sorry that I haven't had time till now to respond. Thanks to santing especially for defending the historic Christian position.

First, let me acknowledge your position that one can hold to an inerrant Scripture and also hold to evolution. Thinking Genesis 1-3 is metaphorical is not to say that it is in error or fictional. Creationists like myself do not accuse good brethren of denying the Scripture, only of misunderstanding it - and in doing so, leaving us without any rule of interpretation.

Let me deal with some of your specifics:
1. Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. I have not found them so - maybe your perception is too defensive, or mine too accepting.

2. increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position. Our position is not that most evolutionist scientists are knowingly lying about evolution. They are adopting a very complex explanation of the evidence, one that has face-value credibility in itself and one that is made more credible because it is the establishment view. The conspiracy comes in by the intolerance of scientific creationism as an alternative explanation - it and the scientists who promote it are vilified and discriminated against.

3. i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Depends on how one determines who is a 'famous Christian'. Most of the famous Christians I know of are creationists. But allowing that my theological circle may be narrower than some, even then I wonder at 5%.

4. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. You rightly identify the key issue.

5. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. I'm sorry, you are totally mistaken. Calvin specifically says death was a result of the Fall. What you have confused it with is his suggestion that Adam, had he not fell, would have passed from this life - without dying - into the eternal state we now look forward to.

6. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish?? Excellent. Let me pose a few that puzzle me as to how a TE would explain them:
a. God describes His completed creation as 'very good' - but if evolution is true, billions of years of suffering and death are very good. Dying with cancer or emphysema today is very good. Animal predation is very good.

Does not the Bible describe death as the last enemy?

b. Adam and Eve's parents and siblings were soulless apes.

c. Noah built a ship and marooned himself and his family and samples of every land animal on it for over a year, when all they had to do was leave the valley before the Flood or row ashore. This local flood scenario just doesn't make sense of the text, while a global flood does.

d. Or maybe the suggestion is that the Noah story is also only metaphorical, that no such person or flood actually happened. This raises the question as to how one determines who in the Biblical accounts are historical figures and who are metaphors. Abraham? Jacob? Moses? David? Daniel? Jesus?

Which is the BIG issue - what rule of interpretation lets one say the Genesis account is non-historical but the Exodus or the Incarnation are historical facts? Adam & Eve; Noah & the Flood; Babel; Abraham, Isaac & Jacob; Joseph; Moses & the Exodus; David & Solomon & the Kingdom; Jesus' incarnation, miracles, death & resurrection - the rule that allows one to be non-historical allows all to be treated likewise.

Jesus might or might not be a real person, and if real he might or might not have physically risen from the dead. It all might be a story, a metaphor given by the founders of the new sect to teach how we should live sacrificial lives and look to God to raise our spirits when we die.

santing

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're left with three options

I disagree with your three options, but that's not part of this discussion.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

We would have to look at what makes a text historical or allegorical. Im off to find some time to listen to fanny's recomendations. Happy hunting cairde.

Maybe reading Genesis 6 - 50 gives an indication of whether Genesis should be read as historical or allegorical?
BTW have we now eliminated Poetic for Genesis 1-3?

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There could be said to be one thing that gives away that the first chapters aren't meant to be taken literally. That thing is that science has definitively proven that we evolved from lower life forms and did not originate with two fully formed humans in the garden of Eden

You're left with three options

1. Every scientist in the world is wrong. I say every scientist because there's no such thing as a creation scientist
2. The bible is wrong
3. You have interpreted the bible incorrectly

It's highly unlikely that every scientist in the world is wrong so if I were you I would find the most palletable option to be 3, you've interpreted it incorrectly. You're only human after all, you could update your understanding of the bible, come to understand your god better and end the situation where you have to say that the whole of human learning is wrong because it disagrees with your interpretation of the bible. Everybody's happy

Hi Sam,

St. Augustine is where I would go to reconcile and understand Genesis today as a believer, I think the guy was well beyond his time and he was a fabulous philosopher and scientist, and even better at asking all the questions about the universe, life, love etc etc. that we think are brand new today......he says..

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, ( current understanding ) we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.

In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress for the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

This is basic and sound advice imo. It's honest, and open to ridicule, but nonetheless - inspired?? We believe the bible and the testimony of Jesus Christ came out of the Church, not the Church came out of the bible. It's one of the founding principles of my faith.

..and I LIKE science..lol...

I have reconciled myself to the fact that I am a mere 'blip' in the knowledge of our existence, in my current time and place....but I am fascinated by it and how beautiful it is too..:)